Practices and Awareness of Disinformation for a Sustainable Education in European Secondary Education

Abstract

The growing integration of technology in education has heightened awareness of global risks, such as the spread of disinformation. This awareness is vital for fostering the well-being of individuals, especially teenagers, by promoting critical thinking and responsible digital practices. By cultivating these skills, sustainable education empowers individuals to identify potential threats, protect themselves, and advocate for informed, positive change. As part of a European project, this study aims to analyze the current level of awareness among secondary school students (12 to 17) and their teachers. Differences between both are analyzed in how they deal with disinformation in terms of (1) perceptions, (2) feelings and practices, and (3) knowledge and management. A quantitative approach was adopted for this study, which surveyed 1186 minors and 166 teachers. The analysis was based on non-parametric statistics; the Mann–Whitney U statistic was applied as the appropriate measure for comparing independent samples (teachers and students) with a non-normal distribution (p < 0.05). The results were surprising in that they highlighted that minors were more expert than expected in their use of technology and their awareness of the risks of disinformation. These conclusions make it clear that technological tools have the potential to raise awareness of the dangers of disinformation and improve the sustainability of education.

1. Introduction

The perpetual necessity of teaching people, particularly vulnerable children, how to use digital environments effectively signifies that media and digital literacy has become an indispensable component of sustainable education in emerging economies, where labor market imperatives demand superior and up-to-date competencies [1]. As many authors have stated [2,3], the increased interconnectedness of digital scenarios in which adolescents continuously interact makes it increasingly sensible to align sustainability education with digital media literacy. As stated by Bernier [3], “In bridging digital media literacy and sustainability education, sustainability educators must be ready and willing to navigate the acceleration of media permeating the education landscape, as it is happening and will continue to happen with our insight or not” (p. 2).

The development of the literacies required in the 21st century has evolved significantly since Paul Zurkowski [4] articulated the need for a new literacy—information literacy—in his 1974 presentation to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). This address was delivered in response to the imminent transformations that digitization would bring about within the field of librarianship. This first initiative gave rise to a number of associated concepts, including but not limited to digital literacy, which was initially described by Glister as the ability to understand and use different digital sources [5] and digital competence [6]. The latter has recently been acknowledged by the European Union as a key competence for citizens’ lifelong learning, enabling them to participate efficiently and effectively in a digital society. Consequently, media literacy, which was initially conceived as the study of the media [7], evolved into a social and educational necessity. This necessity encompasses a variety of requirements in an era of growing digital connectivity [8]. In addition to literacy development, approaches to sustainability education have emerged, referring to methods, strategies, and frameworks that promote long-term, holistic, and responsible learning practices aimed at creating a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable society [3]. These approaches often involve teaching students not just academic content but also critical thinking skills, ethical values, and the knowledge needed to address global challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and disinformation. In the context of disinformation, a sustainable education approach would mean equipping students with the ability to critically evaluate information, recognize biases, and understand the ethical implications of sharing and consuming content.

The emergence of the Internet as a dominant ecosystem in an increasingly technologized society, alongside the development of smaller digital ecosystems such as social networks, can be observed during this period of early-century expansion. At this stage, the full impact of these could not be foreseen. Over the course of two decades, social networks have proliferated to an unprecedented degree on a global scale, profoundly impacting informational, creative, social, economic, political, and educational processes [9]. These networks have exacerbated existing challenges, such as disinformation, to the extent that they have become a global epidemic, named an “infodemic” by the World Health Organization [10], raising concerns at the global—as pointed by the OECD [11]—European [12], and national level [13]. Nevertheless, social media has become increasingly pervasive in the mass media landscape, providing information and becoming the primary source of news for the general population, especially the youngest one. According to the most recent report by the Reuters Institute, the Digital News Report 2023 [14], there has been a global decline in the percentage of individuals accessing a media outlet’s website specifically to read news. This decline, from 32% in 2018 to 22% in 2023, was accompanied by an increase in access via social media, which increased in proportion to the aforementioned decline.

The previous decade has been a pivotal one for media and digital literacy, as it has become a prominent feature of political agendas, legislation, and initiatives [15]. Additionally, it has also gained recognition in the educational sphere, necessitating the implementation of specific measures to facilitate sustainable education to support the integration of effective digital competencies, critical thinking, and digital media literacy into classroom instruction. However, incorporating these competencies into the curriculum often remains merely declarative, as educators lack the necessary training and the curriculum is not sufficiently comprehensive to allow for the development of these competencies.

In light of this contextual situation, our project makes sense as a means of supporting teachers and students in overcoming the challenges posed by an information-overwhelmed society. This project’s primary objective is to provide teachers with the necessary support to implement didactic designs in the classroom using specific materials that facilitate the use of social networks to combat misinformation. This research is an initial quantitative investigation whose main aim is to determine whether a digital divide exists between students and teachers, which could lead to significant challenges when designing media literacy learning approaches. Based on previous studies, we hypothesize that a digital divide exists between these two groups, and our work will focus on this:

• H₀ = There are no statistically significant differences between both independent samples (p > 0.05).
• H₁ = There are statistically significant differences between both independent samples (p < 0.05).

Analyzing whether the initial hypothesis is confirmed or rejected for each of the items studied (see Materials and Methods section) will enable us to design an effective digital literacy learning approach for teachers and students in secondary education. Firstly, this approach will help them to address the digital divide in the various subjects studied. Secondly, it will enable the integration of resources and activities aimed at combatting disinformation. The results and conclusions make it clear that when designing materials, the main action to be taken is to provide students with a comprehensive explanation of all concepts and terms related to disinformation. In addition, the findings show that, while using technological tools has the potential to raise awareness of the dangers of disinformation, specific training is needed to address this threat.

2. State of Affairs

2.1. Disinformation and Fake News

In recent years, disinformation has become an increasingly prevalent phenomenon in the crowded digital landscape. It is eroding trust in democracies and traditional media, while also emerging as a potent tool in geopolitical strategies. The latest report from the IBERIFIER Observatory [16] reveals that the consumption of disinformation is driven by various motives: economic, algorithmic, geopolitical, and notoriety. These motives significantly impact such a diverse digital system. According to the National Cybersecurity Institute [13], hoaxes aim to misinform and are defined as false news created on topics of interest or current affairs with the intention of generating social alarm or attracting the attention of as many users as possible. Disinformation is therefore the result of a hoax. According to the EU guidelines for teachers and educators on combatting disinformation and promoting digital literacy, “disinformation is verifiably false or misleading information that is created, presented and disseminated for profit or to deliberately mislead the public” (p. 45) [17].

The term of fake news was paradoxically popularized by President Trump in 2016 to describe news published by outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. This term has become part of everyday citizens’ vocabulary and contains multiple meanings that are difficult to interpret. As Tandoc and others [18] point out, the concept encompasses different typologies that have proven difficult for researchers to study, particularly given the unprecedented extremes to which the phenomenon has been taken due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the advent of artificial intelligence. Thus, authors such as Wardle and Derakhshan [19] advocate for a more inclusive terminology such as ‘information disorder’ to refer to phenomena associated with terms such as ‘hoaxes’, ‘disinformation’, ‘post-truth’, and ‘fake news’.

Regardless of the adopted conceptualization or perspective, both disinformation and fake news threaten democracies by limiting citizens’ right to be well informed through the filter bubbles they create [20]. In fact, there are a multitude of initiatives at both the European and national level, including the Iberian Digital Media Observatory (IBERIFIER), INCIBE, Fundación Cibervoluntarios, Pantallas Amigas, Fundación Atresmedia, and the iCmedia Federation of Associations, that attempt to alleviate a worrying situation that has become commonplace in citizens’ daily media consumption. According to the Eurobarometer of February 2024 [21], the average percentage of the population in the EU that often finds information or news that they believe distorts reality or is even false is 69%, a figure that rises to 83% in the case of Spain.

Given that its impact and proliferation are already considered a global epidemic, the fight against this phenomenon is more necessary than ever. In this context, it is vital that the population, and especially minors, are media-literate in order to combat disinformation [22,23]. It is clear that children and young people are the age group most exposed to disinformation on social networks. This is primarily due to their vulnerability and secondly due to their extensive exposure. According to the latest IAB Spain report [24], 86% of Internet users in Spain aged 12–74 use social networks. They naturally engage in various interactions on these platforms, such as socializing, entertainment, learning, and playing games. These activities were previously confined to real-life spaces [25,26].

2.2. Minors and Social Media

The beginning of the 21st century saw the emergence of social networks within the media landscape, functioning as forums for massive communication. These networks were based on the idea of making the dissemination of information more democratic, thereby marking the beginning of what Jenkins called media convergence [27]. These networks thus brought to life the concept of the prosumer, as envisaged by Alvin Toffler. The hybridization of issuers and consumers led to these spaces being consecrated as a Delphic oracle, where any information circulated almost as soon as it occurred. This was made possible by the new reality in which Orwell’s dystopia was realized, with billions of individuals feeding the networks.

The normalization of social networks as spaces for global interaction [28] subsequently resulted in the emergence of traditional media profiles, which facilitated the dissemination of information. This engendered a certain degree of confusion in these spaces, which were established both as vehicles for facilitating population participation and interaction and as novel distribution channels for the media. Consequently, the media sought to assimilate quickly and extensively into the citizens’ media diets. As Casero-Ripollés and García-Gordillo noted, this marked the beginning of a multifaceted process for the media: “Their authority is deteriorating and their social influence is being diluted; moreover, they are losing their centrality in the political conversation on social networks, with the consequent reduction of their capacity to influence in that scenario” (p. 157) [29].

The hybridization of social networks as spaces where any user can post information, coupled with the disintermediation process this has engendered in the media (meaning the networks themselves have become the channels through which information flows rather than simply disseminating elsewhere), has gradually delegitimized the informative fact. This is a consequence of the merging and confusion of informative facts with content flows, a phenomenon that is more attributable to clickbait and emotions than to criteria of veracity. The global impact of the CoV-19 pandemic on social network usage was significant, with an increase in users worldwide across all demographic groups. However, this increase has been accompanied by a proliferation of disinformation and information disorder, leading to an information environment characterized by uncertainty and distrust on a global scale.

The present study draws upon the findings of the ONTSI Report [30], which explores how the increased use of the Internet and social networks affects the mental health of young people and adolescents: “11.3% of the Internet-using population aged 15–24 are at high risk of making compulsive use of digital services. This threat rises to 33% in the case of 12–16 years old” (p. 3). This warning from ONTSI highlights a phenomenon that has been previously documented in academic research, emphasizing the growing presence of minors on social networks in recent decades.

Similarly, the Net Children Go Mobile report [31] focused on studying children’s Internet use between 2010 and 2015. It provided substantial data on social network usage among a sample of 500 children aged 9–16 who were using Facebook at the time. The report revealed a clear trend towards more private Internet usage, a phenomenon confirmed by the widespread adoption of smartphones and social networks. This is particularly relevant to the issue at hand.

Another noteworthy study in this field is the work by Sánchez-Burón and Fernández-Martín [32], which analyzed the responses of 6798 children from all of Spain’s Autonomous Communities with regard to their use of social networks. Their study found that 78% of the participating children used social networks and were aware of them. Subsequently, in 2018, Sánchez-Pardo and others presented a report on a specific program designed to prevent the misuse of the Internet and social networks among primary and secondary school students and their families. Later, Garitaonandia and others [33] presented one of the most relevant studies in this field, utilizing a sample of 2900 children and young people. In this study, the researchers highlighted the increasing normalization of minors’ presence on social networks, particularly among those 9 to 11 years old. They also noted an increase in online risks compared to previous studies conducted by the team, which revealed that the online environment was not as harmful as it was currently perceived.

The undeniable reality of children’s presence on social networks necessitates the implementation of targeted media literacy initiatives. This phenomenon poses a significant challenge to researchers and academics seeking to develop projects and initiatives to address this issue. In this sense, recent studies have identified works demonstrating active digital literacy, presenting social networks as potential learning environments and resources for teaching [34,35,36,37]. This suggests the hypothesis that, having identified the problem, we must propose proactive solutions, given the extent to which students use these environments. The objective is to educate students on how to use these tools to their advantage.

3. Materials and Methods

The context demonstrates that practical approaches and real support for teachers and students are required to assist them in acquiring the necessary skills to combat disinformation. As demonstrated in previous studies [38], teachers and students actively use social media to become informed; subsequently, they are highly exposed to disinformation. The objective of this research is to analyze the current state of awareness among European secondary school students (12 to 17) and their teachers. Differences between both are studied in how they deal with disinformation in terms of perceptions, feelings–practices, and knowledge management.

In order to contextualize this work, it is worth mentioning that this research is part of a European project (WISE-ME: the right use of social media to face disinformation and fake news) that aims to promote the responsible use of social media in the fight against disinformation and fake news. This project is a collaboration between six countries: Spain, Greece, the Czech Republic, Austria, Denmark, and Bulgaria. Students and teachers participating in this project were selected using a convenience sampling method. Each partner contacted one or two educational centers interested in participating, as the project’s objective was commitment rather than representativeness. The only requirement was that they were secondary education centers interested in taking part in the initial planning and final piloting process. A total sample of 166 teachers and 1186 students participated in the first stage of the project, which consisted of a quantitative study to help researchers explore perceptions, feelings–practices, and knowledge management related to disinformation. The information gathered at this stage would provide the research team with an appropriate overview with which to design training materials specifically aimed at engaging teachers and students in combatting disinformation in an educational context, especially when using social media.

The methodological approach used in this research was quantitative, descriptive, exploratory, and correlational, with the design of an ad hoc questionnaire as the most appropriate tool to collect information, as pointed out by Hernández-Sampieri and others [39] and Creswell [40]. The questionnaire was structured around three study constructs to accomplish the study of perceptions, feelings, and knowledge, comprising different variables each: (1) perceptions—perceived habits in the use and consumption of social networks—with 15 variables and 88 items; (2) feelings and practices on information management in social networks, with 6 variables and 31 items; and (3) knowledge and management of disinformation, with 11 variables and 41 items. Consequently, the questionnaire was structured into four sections: the first block encompasses three variables concerning socio-demographic characteristics; the second block focuses on the utilization of social networks; the third block addresses information on the feelings and practices within these networks; and the fourth and final block concerns disinformation management and knowledge. Due to the considerable length of the questionnaire, which included a total of 35 variables and 150 items, and the substantial amount of data obtained in this study, only 12 variables and 43 items were analyzed in this paper, as can be seen in

Table 1. Constructs of study and underlying variables with items and corresponding answers designed.

Construct	Variable	Items from Questionnaire						Responses
Perceptions	V1: Creation	Why do you think fake news or disinformation is created?
		- By mistake - By malicious intent - Out of boredom			- For fun - For political interests - For economic interests			1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes	4 = Often 5 = Always
	V2: Association	What would you associate fake news with?
		- Humour/Entertainment - Information - Distrust			- Manipulation - Gaining popularity			1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes	4 = Often 5 = Always
	V3: Distribution	To what extent do you think fake news and/or disinformation is distributed through:
		– TV, press, radio – Facebook – Instagram – X (Twitter) – TikTok		– WhatsApp – YouTube – Telegram – BeReal		– Twitch – Discord – Pinterest – Snapchat		0 = I do not use it 1 = Never 2 = Once	3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Always
Feelings and practice	V4: Impact in own life	Do you think that fake news and disinformation have a negative impact on your daily life?						1 = Very unlikely 2 = Unlikely 3 = Neutral	4 = Likely 5 = Very likely
	V5: Ability to recognize fake news	How would you rate your ability to spot or recognize fake news and disinformation?						1 = I cannot recognize them 2 = I rarely recognize them 3 = Sometimes I recognize them 4 = I often recognize them 5 = I always recognize them
	V6: Self creation	Have you ever created fake news to share?						1 = Never 2 = Once 3 = Sometimes	4 = Often 5 = Always
	V7: Sharing	Have you ever shared a fake news story knowing it was fake?						1 = Never 2 = May be, not conscious	3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Always
Knowledge and management	V8: Knowledge	Do you know what fake news and disinformation is?						Yes/No
	V9: Fact-checking use	Do you tend to fact-check information shared by friends or family on social media?						1 = No 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes	4 = Often 5 = Always
	V10: Information verification	Do you verify information from multiple sources before believing or sharing it?						1 = No 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes	4 = Often 5 = Always
	V11: Management	Do you use strategies or tools to confirm what comes to you?							Yes/No
	V12: Recognition	Do you recognize the meaning of any of these words?
		- Fake new - Disinformation - Clickbaiting - Hoax		- Infoxication - Post-truth - Bot - Infodemic		- Polarization - Fact-checkers - Deep Fake			Yes/No

Source: Own elaboration.

.

The questionnaire was designed based on previous instruments [26,34], but was adapted to meet the project’s specifications. To ensure accurate validation, a two-step process was employed: Firstly, a group of experts was convened, comprising two specialists in digital learning and educational design, two educational consultants from non-governmental organizations (The European Center of Entrepreneurship Competence and Excellence and Odpovēdá Společnost, z.s.), and two secondary school teachers. Notwithstanding the fact that the items were initially written in English and subsequently translated into the languages of each partner, the experts guaranteed their clarity and conciseness. Secondly, statistical validation was applied using Cronbach’s alpha test to check the instrument’s internal consistency. The value obtained, 0.847, exceeds the threshold of 0.70, thus indicating a high level of consistency. The list of variables, items of the questionnaire, and types of responses can be found in Table 1.

The sample description results are as follows in the case of students (N = 1186): Female n = 613; Male n = 534; and Other n = 39. Age clustering, Min. = 12; Max. = 18 years old. Average age, Mean = 14.1; SD = 1.58. Age distribution (percentages and frequencies): 12 years = 9.4%/111; 13 years = 10.9%/129; 14 years = 20.2%/239; 15 years = 19.9%/236; 16 years = 22.4%/266; 17 years = 15.2%/180; and 18 years = 2.1%/25. The following description is provided for the teacher sample (N = 166): Female, n = 106; Male, n = 58; Other, n = 2. Teachers’ ages: Min. = 21; Max. = 70; Mean = 45.1; and SD = 11.03.

As part of the sample was composed of minors, the questionnaire was submitted to the relevant Ethics Committee, and its structure and approach to the questions were positively assessed. In addition to the approval of the Ethics Committee, each questionnaire received explicit consent from each participant. Data analysis was performed with SPSS software, version 29. Data were collected from July to October 2024, at the most convenient time for the educational centers involved. Data analysis was based on comparing results from independent samples (Group 1 = students; Group 2 = teachers).

4. Results

The results are presented according to the three constructs of analysis, previously described, in order to facilitate a more profound understanding of the differences between students and teachers in how they deal with disinformation in terms of perceptions, feelings–practices, and knowledge management. In order to ascertain the most appropriate statistical technique, the sample distribution was subjected to a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (the recommended procedure for samples larger than 50). This revealed that the sample distribution was not normal (p < 0.05). Consequently, non-parametric statistics were employed, with the Mann–Whitney U statistic [38] being the most appropriate measure for the comparison of independent samples. In addition, the frequencies of the variables were compared by means of descriptive statistics.

4.1. Perceptions of Disinformation in Terms of Creation, Associations, and Distribution

The comparative analysis of perceptions of disinformation among teachers and students yielded the following results concerning the underlying variable ‘Why do you think fake news or disinformation is created?’.

Table 2. Frequencies and Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples for perceptions about fake news creation.

Why Do you Think Fake News or Disinformation is Created?
		Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Always	z	p **
By mistake	G1 *	34.1%	39.9%	19.1%	5.3%	1.7%	2.236	0.025
	G2	27.1%	38.6%	26.5%	7.2%	0.6%
By malicious intent	G1	4.6%	10.6%	27.5%	42%	15.3%	4.126	<0.001
	G2	0%	4.8%	24.1%	49.4%	21.7%
Out of boredom	G1	9.6%	17.5%	31.5%	32%	9.4%	−1.935	0.053
	G2	12%	16.9%	36.7%	30.1%	4.2%
For fun	G1	7.6%	13.7%	32.5%	34.7%	11.6%	−1.545	0.122
	G2	4.8%	13.3%	43.4%	36.7%	1.8%
For political interests	G1	6.4%	12.1%	25.4%	37.1%	19%	5.886	<0.001
	G2	0.6%	2.4%	17.5%	50.6%	28.9%
For economic interests	G1	5.8%	13.7%	29.1%	33.2%	18.1%	6.201	<0.001
	G2	1.2%	1.8%	19.9%	50%	27.1%

* Group 1 = students (G1); Group 2 = teachers (G2). Own elaboration. ** p value < 0.05.

shows the results of the descriptive statistics (frequencies) and comparative statistics, for which a Mann–Whitney U test (Z) was performed to compare the means of the variables between the two studied groups, Group 1 = students (G1) and Group 2 = teachers (G2), in order to analyze whether the null hypothesis (H₀ = there are no statistically significant differences across categories of each group (p value < 0.050)) is accepted or rejected.

As shown in Table 2, the null hypothesis was rejected (p > 0.050) as statistically significant differences were found between students and teachers in the perception that fake news is created “by mistake” (z = 2.236; p = 0.025), “by malicious intent” (z = 4.126; p < 0.001), “for political interest” (z = 5.886; p < 0.001), or “for economic interests” (z = 6.201; p < 0.001). However, the results indicate that there were no statistically significant differences in the perception that fake news is created “out of boredom” (z = −1.935; p = 0.053) or “for fun” (z = −1.545; p = 0.122).

The next variable in the analysis of perception will show frequencies and a Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples for perceptions about fake news association. As shown in

Table 3. Frequencies and Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples for perceptions about fake news association.

What Would You Associate Fake News with?
		Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Always	z	p **
Humor/Entertainment	G1 *	32%	24%	26.7%	12.1%	5.2%	−1.257	0.209
	G2	38.6%	16.9%	34.3%	7.8%	2.4%
Information	G1	25.5%	23.7%	25%	16.9%	8.9%	−0.262	0.793
	G2	37.3%	11.4%	16.3%	22.3%	12.7%
Distrust	G1	14%	13.7%	27.8%	26.1%	18.5%	3.070	0.002
	G2	10.8%	6%	26.5%	32.5%	24.1%
Manipulation	G1	9.1%	9.9%	19.7%	30.1%	31.1%	6.622	<0.001
	G2	2.4%	0.6%	15.1%	28.3%	53.6%
Gaining popularity	G1	11.2%	9.1%	21.9%	29.0%	28.8%	1.820	0.069
	G2	6.6%	2.4%	21.1%	44.6%	25.3%

* Group 1 = students (G1); Group 2 = teachers (G2). Own elaboration. ** p value < 0.05.

, statistically significant differences were found between students and teachers in their perception of fake news as being associated with “Distrust” (z = 3.070; p = 0.002) and “Manipulation” (z = 6.622; p ≤ 0.001). The results clearly show that teachers perceive fake news as being associated with distrust and manipulation more than students do.

No significant differences were found regarding the associations with “Humor/Entertainment” (z = −1.257; p = 0.209), Information (z = −0.262; p = 0.793), and “Gaining Popularity” (z = 1.820; p = 0.069). Both groups shared the perception that fake news is rarely, if ever, associated with “humour or entertainment” or “information”, and is most often associated with “gaining popularity”. The same result was obtained in a recent study by Reneses and others [41], which was applied to students aged 13 to 17 from different European countries.

The last variable in the “Perception” construct analysis refers to the media outlets and social media platforms that mostly distribute fake news. The results show quite different perceptions in the two analyzed samples, as can be seen in Figure 1.

A Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples was used to compare the perceptions of students and teachers regarding the distribution of fake news. This revealed statistically significant differences, with the exception of YouTube (z = 0.909 p = 0.363), in most analyzed media (p ≤ 0.05): media outlets (z = 4.952; p ≤ 0.001); Facebook (z = 9.412; p ≤ 0.001); Instagram (z = −1.977; p = 0.048); TikTok (z = −8.095; p ≤ 0.001); X (z = −0.144; p = 0.048); WhatsApp (z = 5.111; p ≤ 0.001); BeReal (z = −5.286; p ≤ 0.001); Discord (z = −4.314; p ≤ 0.001); Twitch (z = −3.649; p ≤ 0.001); Telegram (z = 2.325; p = 0.020); Pinterest (z = 2.357; p = 0.018); and Snapchat (z = −4.340; p ≤ 0.001). These results indicate a very different perception between the two samples, which can be explained by their differing media consumption habits, as demonstrated in previous studies [41].

4.2. Feelings Towards Disinformation: Self-Impact, Ability to Recognize, Self-Creation, and Sharing

The following analysis of sentiments regarding disinformation will examine four different variables. This study will begin with an investigation into self-impact perception, a concept deemed crucial by Bastik [42], given the potential of fake news to alter individual behavior. Furthermore, the analysis of the variables “ability for fake news recognition”, “fake news creation”, and “fake news sharing” was conducted (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The results obtained from the Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples show statistically significant differences between students and teachers in all four variables associated with the study of “Feelings towards disinformation”: “Self-impact perception” (z = 2.431 p = 0.015); “Ability for recognition” (z = 2.924 p = 0.003); “Self-creation” (z = −4.163; p ≤ 0.001); and “Fake news sharing” (z = 3.323; p ≤ 0.001). A detailed analysis of the distribution of the responses, as illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3, reveals significant disparities.

As Figure 2 shows, the investigation into the negative impact of fake news on individuals’ lives reveals that 41.5% of teachers (4 out of 10) consider it “Likely or Very likely”, whereas this figure is significantly lower for students, with only 25% of them sharing this perception. It is worth mentioning that the data reveals that students are largely unaware of the fake news phenomenon, with 25% of students stating that fake news and disinformation does not affect them and 37% maintaining a neutral position. Additionally, while Eurobarometer data suggests that 85% of Spaniards consider disinformation to be a national issue, our study’s adult sample is neutral on this matter, with 37% holding this view and 33% stating that it does not affect them. The discrepancy between teacher and student perceptions of fake news is confirmed by the variable measuring their ability to recognize it. While 48.6% of teachers indicate that they recognize fake news “often and always”, a significantly higher percentage of students, 60.2%, indicate as such.

As evidenced by Figure 3, the prevalence of fake news remains minimal, yet it is noteworthy that 7.2% of teachers and 10% of students self-report creating it “Sometimes, Often, and Always”. The findings reveal that 64.5% of teachers and 52.3% of students declare never having shared fake news. However, the most relevant results are that three out of ten in both samples declared that they may have shared fake news without realizing; “Maybe, not consciously, they have shared fake news”. In relation to the dissemination of misinformation, the vast majority of teaching professionals in the study sample (97.6%) asserted that they do not engage in spreading it. This figure contrasts with the average rate among students, which is recorded at 90.7%.

4.3. Knowledge and Management Perceived Regarding Fake News, Disinformation, and Related Terms

The last group of variables studied refers to the perceived knowledge of both samples. Figure 4 shows the results for the following questions: Do you know what fake news is? (a) Do you use any strategies or tools to confirm what comes to you?

As shown in Figure 4, there is a negligible difference in awareness of the concept of ‘fake news’ between the two groups, suggesting a universal understanding of this phenomenon. Almost 100% of teachers (99.4%) declared that they knew what fake news was, compared to 94% of students. Further analysis reveals statistically significant differences in the variables of fact-checking practice and information verification. The results relating to the question of “Information verification” are illustrated in

Table 4. Frequencies and Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples for perceptions about fact-checking and information verification.

		Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Always	z	p **
Fact-checking practice	G1 *	18.1%	32.4%	30.9%	14.4%	3.5%	−7.845	<0.001
	G2	4.8%	17.5%	39.8%	31.9%	6.0%
Information verification	G1	14.8%	25.1%	38.3%	14.4%	7.3%	−7.841	<0.001
	G2	6.6%	12.7%	30.1%	22.3%	28.3%

* Group 1 = students (G1); Group 2 = teachers (G2). Own elaboration. ** p value < 0.050.

. This analysis aims to ascertain whether respondents fact-check information shared by friends or family on social media. The statistical analysis yielded a z-value of −7.845 and a p-value of less than 0.001. Teachers were found to be more likely to verify facts “sometimes” (40%) than students, who were found to be more likely to verify facts “often and always” (38%).

In addition, the “Information verification” variable, which corresponds to the aforementioned question, is noteworthy. The present study examined the tendency to accept or disseminate information as verified from multiple sources. The results revealed statistically significant differences (z = −7.481; p ≤ 0.001). The results of this study indicate that a significant proportion of the students (40%) and a notable minority of the teaching staff (20%) rarely or never verify information. These findings suggest a need for training, with students being twice as likely to require it than adults.

In order to complete the aforementioned study, it would be interesting to analyze the level of knowledge of the main concepts related to fake news among both groups. This analysis addressed the following question: Do you recognize the meaning of any of these words? Figure 5 shows similarities and differences.

Analogous outcomes (with a margin of error of less than 10% between the two samples) were observed for several concepts that received a positive response. The following categories were identified as follows between the two samples (T = teachers and S = students): ‘Disinformation’ (T = 97.6%; S = 92.6%), ‘Hoax’ (T = 82.5%; S = 73.1%), and ‘Fact-checker’ (T = 61.4%; S = 51.4%). It seems evident that alternative terms produced different outcomes for both samples (with discrepancies exceeding 15%). The following percentages were recorded for the following terms: ‘Information intoxication’ (T = 59.6%; S = 45.4%), ‘Post-truth’ (T = 60.8%; S = 41.6%), ‘Infodemic’ (T = 34.9%; S = 21.1%), and ‘Deep Fake’ (T = 72.3%; S = 58.5%). The most significant discrepancies in knowledge were identified in the following terms: Eight out of ten teachers were aware of the term ‘Bot’, compared to three out of ten students (T = 84.4%; S = 34.9%), and similar findings were observed for ‘Polarization’ (T = 80.7%; S = 36.3%). Interestingly, students demonstrated marginally higher levels of comprehension of the term ‘Clickbaiting’ than teachers (T = 54.2%; S = 58.3%).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The findings of this study can be usefully placed in the context of wider research into teachers’ and students’ perceptions, knowledge, and practices with regard to disinformation and digital literacy. In line with the structure outlined in the Results section, the subsequent presentation of the conclusions and discussion will follow the same order to enhance comprehension.

With regard to perceptions of disinformation in terms of its creation, associations, and distribution, the present study corroborates some of the findings of earlier research in this area. Indeed, previous studies have already demonstrated that both teachers and students are generally aware of the concepts of ‘fake news’ and disinformation, and of their prevalence in digital environments [43]. The present study lends further support to this tendency, thus confirming the hypothesis that this perception is widespread among contemporary teachers and students. The findings are consistent with those of earlier studies by Sánchez-Burón and others [30] and Melro and Pereira [44], which found that people who use social media primarily for news tend to trust traditional media outlets more than social media. The association of disinformation with manipulation remains a prevalent perception among younger demographics. Both novel and extant findings substantiate the hypothesis that contemporary society inhabits a paradoxical milieu wherein individuals source information from sources of questionable credibility, such as social media, yet persist in utilizing these platforms as their primary sources of information.

Feelings towards disinformation entail the second construct under study. Previous studies focusing on perceived impact and self-efficacy, such as those by Kopecký and others [45], Allen and others [46], and Saunders [43], have shown that teachers are more likely than students to perceive the negative impact of disinformation on their lives and on society as a whole. Students often overestimate their ability to recognize fake news. This is a phenomenon that is consistent with the third-person effect. Our research corroborates this, showing that teachers are more likely to report a negative impact on their daily lives, while students are more confident in their ability to spot fake news. Furthermore, research has highlighted that although students may be confident in their digital skills, they often lack the ability to critically evaluate online information.

It is worth noting that although the prevalence of sharing fake news remains minimal, 7.2% of teachers and 10% of students self-reported creating it “Sometimes, Often, and Always”. The findings reveal that 64.5% of teachers and 52.3% of students declared that they have never shared fake news. Regarding intentionality, the results show that three out of ten in both samples declared that they may have shared fake news “without realizing”. Similar results were obtained in an international study conducted by Reneses and others [41]. The fact that false information is shared unintentionally, and that the majority of respondents state that they never share it, is a factor in favor of relevant training. This implies a certain development in collective awareness of the harm that can be caused by sharing this type of information. This finding is consistent with recent studies of teachers by Nygren and others [47], Jones [48], and Tolentino and others [49]. However, this is an innovative finding with regard to students of this age (12–17), as previous studies have shown that adolescents share fake news with manipulative intent [48].

The last research construct in our findings is knowledge and management of fake news, disinformation, and related terms. Studies conducted in France, Romania, Spain, and Sweden have shown that educators have a strong understanding of the concept of ‘fake news’ and are keenly aware of its potential ramifications for society and the education sector [47]. Additionally, studies in the U.S. and elsewhere have documented that teachers are highly aware of the importance of critical media literacy and actively promote these skills among students [46,49]. The present study found that almost all teachers (99.4%) and a significant proportion of students (94%) were familiar with the concept of fake news. This aligns with the results of other studies such as those by Nygren and others [47] and Tolentino and others [49] in which teachers reported high levels of awareness and responsibility regarding misinformation. These results, together with strategies employed by teachers (56%) and students (43.7%), confirm the initial hypothesis that the use of technological tools can enhance awareness among minors, thereby empowering them to recognize and combat global threats, such as disinformation, more effectively.

In terms of the novelty of the results obtained in comparison to previous studies [50], it is interesting to note that the current study revealed significant discrepancies between teachers and students in their ability to recognize advanced terms related to the phenomenon of disinformation (e.g., bot, polarization, infodemic), with teachers demonstrating higher levels of proficiency. While previous studies have examined teachers’ awareness of and ability to use digital tools, few have systematically compared teachers’ and students’ understanding of such specific terminology. This issue sheds light on the design of learning materials, which is one of the project’s objectives.

Despite the limitations of the present study—namely, although it utilized an international sample from the six project partners’ countries, this was not representative—the findings constitute a significant achievement for the project. These results should therefore be understood in this context. The findings have facilitated the conceptualization of innovative materials, thereby providing educators with resources and students with practical exercises, which are accessible via an online platform (https://wiseme.eu/ accessed on 15 June 2025). Consequently, these data are of considerable significance, extending beyond academic research to demonstrate transferability. It is therefore evident that these results constitute the basis for the practical application of concrete findings in the classroom. This notion is consistently emphasized in the existing literature on the topic, as underlined by Jones [48]. Consequently, the research presented and its ultimate objective align perfectly with the principles of sustainable education, which are characterized by an action-oriented approach, value-based pedagogy, and a lifelong learning perspective that emphasizes the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic systems, as well as the need for collective, adaptive, and ethical responses to global challenges such as disinformation [51].

As Abrams [52] asserts, “Initiatives to enhance digital literacy among young people will assist in safeguarding the subsequent generation against the propagation of misinformation online and provide guidance on the responsible use of social media”. Such initiatives inherently entail the provision of sufficient support to educators. Academia is well placed to provide this support through research, with the aim of generating empirical data to inform the design of adequate materials and innovative resources. This project is perfectly aligned with this purpose.