Educator's
Toolkit
A practical guide to facilitating fake-news detection exercises in your classroom — from middle school through university.
Media Literacy
Digital Citizenship
Critical Thinking
Grades 6–12 & University
50–90 Min Lesson
No Account Required
Jump to:
Developed in partnership with the University of Miami Knight Chair in Interactive Media
About Factitious
What Is Factitious & Why Does It Work?
Factitious is a swipe-based media literacy game developed at the American University and maintained by faculty at the University of Miami. Players read short news headlines and stories and swipe right if they believe the article is real, left if they think it is fake, within a 30-second timer. It is grounded in inoculation theory: brief, low-stakes exposure to misinformation patterns builds resistance to being misled by them.
The Research Foundation
The original Factitious project (Grace & Hone, 2019;Hone, 2020) demonstrated that short, repeated exposure to misinformation examples, combined with immediate feedback measurably improves detection accuracy without creating cynicism toward all news. The game has been noted in nearly 100 subsequent research studies.
Grace, L., & Hone, B. (2019, May). Factitious: Large scale computer game to fight fake news and improve news literacy. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-8).
Grace, L. and Liang, S. 2023. Examining Misinformation and Disinformation Games Through Inoculation Theory and Transportation Theory, The 56th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICCS), Maui, Hawaii, January 2023.
Hone, B. 2020. Medium, https://medium.com/@bobhone.designer/factitious-news-game-helps-students-spot-pandemic-misinformation-87c9a2765b57
Fun Fact
All version of Factitious since 2017 have had more than 1 million games played.
How the Game Works
- Players receive one article at a time — headline, image, and a short excerpt.
- A 30-second countdown creates a mild cognitive time pressure.
- Players swipe right for real, left for fake.
- Immediate feedback reveals the correct answer and the source.
- Points reward both accuracy and speed; deductions apply for wrong answers.
- Results are displayed at the end of each 10-article round.
Source Reveal Mechanic
Players may reveal the publication source mid-article , but this costs half their possible points. This teaches students that source,checking is a legitimate tool, not a shortcut.
Quick Setup for Your Class
- Visit mindtoggle.com/factitious on any device.
- No account, login, or app store purchase required.
- Works on phones, tablets, and Mac laptops.
- Optionally have students complete a short demographic profile for research contribution.
-
Each round takes less than 5 minutes; students can play multiple rounds individually or as a group activity
Technical Requirements
- Browser: any modern browser (Chrome, Safari, Firefox)
- Connection: WiFi or cellular data
- Devices: BYOD or school-issued tablet or Mac Laptop
- No app install required (web version available for shorter experience)
Privacy Note
No personally identifiable information is collected. Players choose a nickname. Gameplay data (accuracy, timing, decisions) is used anonymously for media literacy research.
Middle School
Grades 6–8 · Ages 11–14 · 50 min
Lesson Plan A
Is It Real? Spotting Fake News Online
Students in this age group are active social media users who often encounter misinformation before they have developed habits for evaluating it. This lesson introduces source awareness and basic fact-checking as concrete, repeatable skills.
Learning Objectives
By the end of the lesson, students will be able to:
- Define misinformation and disinformation in their own words.
- Identify at least three "red flags" that suggest a news story may be fake.
- Explain why revealing the source of an article can help verify it.
- Reflect on their personal accuracy and what surprised them.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.8
ISTE Student 1.3 (Knowledge Constructor)
CASEL: Self-Awareness
Lesson Plan — 50 Minutes
| Time |
Phase |
What You Do |
What Students Do |
| 0–7 min |
Warm-Up |
Show 2–3 real headlines and 2–3 fake ones (printed or projected). Ask: "Can you tell which is which — and how?" |
Raise hands, make guesses, share instincts. |
| 7–12 min |
Mini-Lesson |
Introduce the Mike Caulfield's SIFT method: Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claims. Keep it brief — one slide or whiteboard. |
Take notes on SIFT; ask clarifying questions. |
| 12–30 min |
Game Play |
Launch Factitious on student devices. Circulate, observe reactions, encourage thinking aloud. |
Play 2 rounds (≈20 articles). Record their final accuracy score on a sticky note or sheet. |
| 30–42 min |
Debrief |
Lead a whole-class discussion using the questions below. Ask students to share one article that fooled them and why. |
Participate in discussion; compare scores with a partner. |
| 42–50 min |
Exit Ticket |
Pose the reflection prompt on the right. Collect exit tickets as a formative check. |
Write 3–4 sentences: What surprised you? What will you do differently next time you read news online? |
Discussion Questions
Which type of article was hardest to judge — political news, health claims, or entertainment? Why do you think that is?
Did looking at the source change your guess? What does that tell us about checking where a story comes from?
Why would someone make up a fake news story? Who might benefit from people believing it?
What's one thing you can do this week when you see a surprising story on social media?
Differentiation Tip
For students who finish early: challenge them to find a real article and rewrite its headline to make it
sound fake, then share with a partner. This reverse exercise deepens understanding of emotional language and clickbait patterns.
High School
Grades 9–12 · Ages 14–18 · 50–60 min
Lesson Plan B
Cognitive Biases & the Spread of Misinformation
High school students are sophisticated enough to engage with the psychological mechanisms behind why misinformation spreads. This lesson connects the gameplay to concepts in psychology, media studies, and civics, making it suitable for English, History, Psychology, or Journalism classes.
Learning Objectives
- Identify at least two cognitive biases (confirmation bias, fluency heuristic) that make people susceptible to fake news.
- Analyze the structural features of misinformation (emotional language, vague attribution, missing dates).
- Evaluate their own performance and hypothesize what factors influenced their accuracy.
- Construct an argument about a platform's or individual's responsibility in curbing misinformation.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.6
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.1
AP Psychology: Cognition
ISTE 1.3d Critical Curation
C3 Framework D2.Civ.10
Lesson Plan — 55 Minutes
| Time |
Phase |
What You Do |
What Students Do |
| 0–8 min |
Hook |
Share a real-world example of viral misinformation that students likely encountered (e.g., a widely-shared false claim about a news event). Ask: "Did anyone see this? Did you believe it?" |
Respond honestly; begin thinking about their own vulnerability. |
| 8–15 min |
Concepts |
Briefly introduce: Confirmation Bias (we believe what fits our worldview), Illusory Truth Effect (repetition makes things feel true), Emotional Contagion (outrage and fear lower critical thinking). Ask students to predict: Which bias do they think will affect their play most? |
Write down their prediction before playing. |
| 15–32 min |
Game Play |
Students play 2–3 rounds. Encourage them to note which articles made them hesitate or feel certain. The game shows them which articles were right or wrong at the end of each round. |
Play Factitious; track their gut reactions in a brief mental or written log. |
| 32–47 min |
Analysis |
Group students in pairs. Provide the analysis prompt: identify 2 articles that fooled them and explain which bias may have played a role. |
Pairs discuss and write 3–4 sentences each. Regroup to share with the class. |
| 47–55 min |
Synthesis |
Pose the big-picture question: "Whose responsibility is it to stop misinformation — individuals, platforms, governments, or journalists?" Take a quick poll, then reveal the distribution to the class. |
Defend their position in 1 minute; listen to other viewpoints. |
Discussion Questions
Did your accuracy improve on the second or third round? What changed in how you were reading the articles?
Were fake articles on certain topics (health, politics, celebrities) harder to catch? What does that reveal about your own areas of bias?
The game uses a timer. How does time pressure affect critical thinking? When in real life do we "swipe" too fast on news?
Should social media platforms be legally responsible for misinformation on their sites? What are the tradeoffs?
Extension: Written Assignment
Students find one real article and one fake article outside the game, then write a 300-word analysis comparing the two using at least two concepts from the lesson (bias, emotional language, source credibility, etc.).
Cross-Curricular Connection
English/Journalism: Analyze headline word choice.
History: Connect to wartime propaganda.
Psychology: Lab write-up on the Illusory Truth Effect.
Civics: First Amendment limits on false speech.
College & University
Undergraduate & Graduate · 75–90 min
Lesson Plan C
Inoculation Theory, News Literacy & the Research Dimension
University courses in Communications, Journalism, Political Science, Psychology, and Information Science can use Factitious as both a learning tool and a research instrument. Students simultaneously experience the game as players and analyze it as researchers or future media professionals.
Learning Objectives
- Explain inoculation theory and its application to misinformation interventions.
- Critically evaluate the design choices in Factitious (scoring, timer, source reveal) through a UX or research lens.
- Interpret their own performance data and formulate hypotheses about the variables that influenced accuracy.
- Engage with the ethical dimensions of AI-generated news content and algorithmic curation.
APA Media Psychology Guidelines
ACRL Framework: Searching as Strategic Exploration
SPJ Code of Ethics
IRB Research Awareness
Session Plan — 80 Minutes
| Time |
Phase |
Facilitator Notes |
Student Activity |
| 0–10 min |
Framing |
Introduce inoculation theory (Compton, 2013) and "prebunking" as a countermeasure. Situate Factitious within the lineage of SIFT and complimentary games like Bad News and Cranky Uncle interventions. Ask: "What measurable outcomes would a study need to demonstrate for an intervention like this to be adopted at scale?" |
Pair discussion; share pre-existing knowledge of fact-checking tools. |
| 10–30 min |
Play |
Students play 3 full rounds. Encourage them to treat it as a "thinking aloud" protocol — narrate silently (or with a partner) what cues they are attending to. |
Play Factitious, note accuracy and any articles that prompted uncertainty. |
| 30–50 min |
Research Lens |
Small groups (3–4) receive one of three analytical lenses: (A) Game Design — how do mechanics shape behavior? (B) Research Methods — how would you measure this intervention's effectiveness? (C) Ethics — what are the risks of gamifying misinformation? |
Groups analyse, then present a 3-minute summary to the class. |
| 50–70 min |
Seminar |
Lead a Socratic styled seminar on one of the discussion questions below. Push for evidence-based positions. Introduce counterarguments as needed. |
Full-class discussion; cite course readings where applicable. |
| 70–80 min |
Assignment Brief |
Introduce the optional research memo assignment (see rubric below). |
Begin forming hypotheses; confirm assignment parameters. |
Seminar Discussion Questions
Inoculation theory assumes "a little exposure" builds resistance. At what point does repeated exposure produce cynicism or apathy instead of critical thinking?
Some Factitious articles are AI-generated fakes. Does knowing this change the ethics of using them as teaching tools? Where is the line?
Your accuracy score is a data point in a university research study. How does it feel to be a research subject? What informed-consent obligations exist?
The game rewards speed. Is quick pattern recognition a valid proxy for critical news literacy, or does it measure something more superficial?
Assessment & Facilitation
Rubric, Facilitator Tips & Resources
Use this page to assess student reflection and to prepare yourself for common classroom dynamics when misinformation literacy is the topic.
University Research Memo Rubric (optional assignment)
Students write a 500–750 word memo analyzing their Factitious performance through one analytical lens. Grade on the following 4-point scale.
| Criterion |
4 — Excellent |
3 — Proficient |
2 — Developing |
1 — Beginning |
| Theory Application |
Accurately applies inoculation theory with specific textual evidence. |
Applies theory correctly with minor gaps in evidence. |
Mentions theory but connection is vague or partially incorrect. |
Theory absent or fundamentally misunderstood. |
| Self-Analysis |
Identifies specific articles, names the bias, and explains the mechanism clearly. |
Identifies bias with reasonable specificity; some gaps. |
Describes reactions but does not name or explain the bias. |
No meaningful self-reflection present. |
| Critical Depth |
Offers nuanced critique of the game design or intervention; considers tradeoffs. |
Raises at least one valid critique with supporting reasoning. |
Surface-level observations; limited reasoning. |
No critical engagement with the design or context. |
| Writing Quality |
Clear, concise, well-structured; appropriate academic register. |
Generally clear with occasional awkward phrasing. |
Meaning clear but writing is disorganized or informal. |
Significant clarity or mechanical issues impede communication. |
Facilitator Tips
- Destigmatize being fooled. Make clear early that nearly everyone — including trained journalists — gets tricked. Getting a 60% accuracy score is instructive, not embarrassing.
- Avoid partisan framing. Fake news is not a "left" or "right" problem. Keep examples balanced and pre-selected to avoid classroom controversy derailing the learning goal.
- Set score expectations. Average first-game accuracy is 55–65%. Students who score lower than expected often engage more deeply in the debrief.
- Use the timer mindfully. If students complain the timer is too short, that's the point — real-world scrolling is even faster. Lean into it as a discussion prompt.
- Allow multiple rounds. Accuracy typically improves 5–15% from round 1 to round 3. Tracking this improvement is itself a data point about the intervention's effectiveness.
- Source reveal as a scaffold. Encourage struggling students to use the source reveal on a few articles, then discuss: did knowing the outlet change your judgment and why?
Common Student Reactions
"I already knew all of this."
Ask for their score. Students who claim high media literacy aren't more likely to score well. Use this as a gentle check on the
Dunning-Kruger effect.
"All news is fake now."
This is the cynicism trap inoculation theory is designed to avoid. Redirect: the goal is
calibrated skepticism — appropriate doubt, not blanket distrust. Ask: "What sources do you actually trust and why?"
"Why does this matter?"
Pull up a real example where misinformation caused documented harm (vaccine hesitancy, election interference, stock market manipulation). Concrete stakes make abstract media literacy visceral.
Further Reading
- Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 116(7), 2521-2526.
- Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2020). Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: Using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication, 37(1), 136-144.
- Roozenbeek et al. (2020). "Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 across 26 countries." Royal Society Open Science.
- Caulfield, M. (2021). Information Literacy for Mortals. PIL Provocation Series. Volume 1, Number 5. Project Information Literacy.
Quick Reference
At-a-Glance Classroom Guide
Cut out or project this page as a reference during class. It summarises the key mechanics, vocabulary, and grade-level variations in one place.
Game Mechanics Summary
| Element | Detail |
|---|
| Articles per round | 10 |
| Timer | 30 seconds per article |
| Correct (fast) | Up to 10 points |
| Correct (after source reveal) | Up to 5 points |
| Wrong answer | –5 to –1 points |
| Timeout (no answer) | 0 points |
| Leaderboard | Global, by accuracy & points |
Key Vocabulary
| Term | Definition |
|---|
| Misinformation | False content shared without intent to deceive. |
| Disinformation | False content shared with intent to deceive. |
| Inoculation Theory | Exposure to weakened forms of misinformation builds resistance. |
| Confirmation Bias | Tendency to accept information that fits prior beliefs. |
| Lateral Reading | Verifying a source by opening new tabs to check its reputation. |
| Clickbait | Exaggerated headlines designed to provoke emotional clicks. |
Lesson Variations by Grade
| Level | Focus | Duration |
|---|
| Grades 6–8 | Red flags, source awareness, SIFT | 50 min |
| Grades 9–12 | Cognitive biases, civic responsibility | 55 min |
| University | Inoculation theory, research design, ethics | 80 min |
| PD / Workshop | Educator self-reflection & curriculum design | 60 min |
Suggested Classroom Norms
- Getting fooled is not failure — it is learning.
- We critique sources, not political sides.
- We compare strategies, not scores.
- What is said in the debrief stays in the room.
- One person speaks; everyone listens.
Contact & Research Contribution
Student gameplay data (anonymous) contributes to ongoing media literacy research at the University of Miami. For research collaboration, custom article sets, or workshop facilitation, contact the Knight Chair in Interactive Media via
mindtoggle.com/factitious.
Access Factitious
mindtoggle.com/factitious
Web browser · iOS · Android · No login required
This guide is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Free to reproduce, adapt, and share for educational purposes with attribution to the University of Miami.
