CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 85Literacy, Media, and EducationLiteracy and Educational PracticesLinguistics and Education Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Propaganda in an Age of Algorithmic Personalization: Expanding Literacy Research and Practice

Open access
Hobbs, Renee·2020·Reading Research Quarterly
DOI 10.1002/rrq.301
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this commentary, the author considers the rise of algorithmic personalization and the power of propaganda as they shift the dynamic landscape of 21st‐century literacy research and practice. Algorithmic personalization uses data from the behaviors, beliefs, interests, and emotions of the target audience to provide filtered digital content, targeted advertising, and differential product pricing to online users. As persuasive genres, advertising and propaganda may demand different types of reading practices than texts whose purpose is primarily informational or argumentative. Understanding the propaganda function of algorithmic personalization may lead to a deeper consideration of texts that activate emotion and tap into audience values for aesthetic, commercial, and political purposes. Increased attention to algorithmic personalization, propaganda, and persuasion in the context of K–12 literacy education may also help people cope with sponsored content, bots, and other forms of propaganda and persuasion that now circulate online.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rrq.301

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. Adler J., 2011, The public’s burden in a digital age: Pressures on intermediaries and the privatization of internet censorship, Journal of Law and Policy, 20, 231
  2. Alexander B., 2016, Digital Literacy: An NMC Horizon Project strategic brief
  3. Alexander N., 2016, The Netflix effect: Technology and entertainment in the 21st century, 81
  4. Ali L., 2018, Why the ‘P’ word—propaganda—might be best for what we’re seeing on our TV screens, Los Angeles Times
  5. 10.1111/padm.12534 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645 · DOI
  7. 10.1177/1461444809336551 · DOI
  8. Boninger F., 2019, Personalized learning and the digital privatization of curriculum and teaching
  9. 10.1080/00131857.2017.1288805 · DOI
  10. Breakstone J., 2018, Teaching students to navigate the online landscape, Social Education, 82, 219
  11. 10.1086/448619 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bulger M., 2016, Personalized learning: The conversations we’re not having
  13. 10.1002/rrq.302 · DOI
  14. 10.2307/1770260 · DOI
  15. 10.1037/xap0000028 · DOI
  16. 10.1145/2702123.2702556 · DOI
  17. 10.1177/1474904115608387 · DOI
  18. Fleming D., 2019, Fear of persuasion in the English language arts, College English, 81, 508, 10.58680/ce201930223 · DOI
  19. 10.23860/JMLE-2019-11-1-4 · DOI
  20. 10.4159/9780674037519 · DOI
  21. 10.3102/0013189X09336671 · DOI
  22. Halverson R., 2009, How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26, 49
  23. Hargittai E., 2010, Trust online: Young adults’ evaluation of web content, International Journal of Communication, 4, 468
  24. Harold C., 2007, Our space: Resisting the corporate control of culture
  25. Henrickson J., 2019, Antitrust and the intrinsic value of Alphabet, Financial Times
  26. Herman E.S., 1989, Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media
  27. Hicks T., 2018, The next decade of digital writing, Voices From the Middle, 25, 9, 10.58680/vm201829622 · DOI
  28. Hobbs R., 2007, Reading the media: Media literacy in high school English
  29. Hobbs R., 2017, Create to learn: Introduction to digital literacy, 10.1002/9781394260201 · DOI
  30. Hobbs R., Mind over media: Propaganda education for a digital age
  31. 10.1093/oso/9780190854317.001.0001 · DOI
  32. 10.23860/JMLE-2016-06-02-5 · DOI
  33. 10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-2-9 · DOI
  34. 10.1177/1468798417712338 · DOI
  35. Huckin T., 2016, Propaganda and rhetoric in democracy: History, theory, analysis, 118
  36. King C., 2019, Gods of the upper air: How a circle of renegade anthropologists reinvented race, sex, and gender in the twentieth century
  37. 10.1002/trtr.1413 · DOI
  38. 10.4018/IJMBL.2019100106 · DOI
  39. Luckert S., 2009, State of deception: The power of Nazi propaganda
  40. 10.2167/le660.0 · DOI
  41. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2017, English language arts and literacy: Grades pre‐kindergarten to 12: Massachusetts curriculum framework—2017
  42. 10.1080/17439884.2018.1428623 · DOI
  43. Mitchell A., 2016, Making the familiar unfamiliar: Techniques for creating poetic gameplay
  44. Moore D.C., 2013, Bringing the world to school: Integrating news and media literacy in elementary classrooms, Journal of Media Literacy Education, 5, 326
  45. Moore D.C., 2014, Media at the core: How media literacy strategies strengthen Common Core, Voices From the Middle, 21, 10, 10.58680/vm201425104 · DOI
  46. 10.1080/10810730.2011.561910 · DOI
  47. Napoli P.M., 2018, What if more speech is no longer the solution? First Amendment theory meets fake news and the filter bubble, Federal Communications Law Journal, 70, 55
  48. National Council of Teachers of English, 2019, Resolution on English education for critical literacy in politics and media
  49. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects
  50. 10.1080/00913367.2015.1107871 · DOI
  51. 10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u · DOI
  52. 10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Pariser E., 2011, The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you
  54. Phillips W., 2018, The oxygen of amplification: Better practices for reporting on extremists, antagonists, and manipulators online: Part 2. “At a certain point you have to realize that you’re promoting them”: The ambivalence of journalistic amplification
  55. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1286943 · DOI
  56. Rainie L., 2017, Code‐dependent: Pros and cons of the algorithm age
  57. Rose‐Stockwell T., 2017, This is how your fear and outrage are being sold for profit: The story of how one metric has changed the way you see the world, Medium
  58. 10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-2-7 · DOI
  59. Skrubbeltrang M.M., 2017, #RIPINSTAGRAM: Examining user’s counter‐narratives opposing the introduction of algorithmic personalization on Instagram, First Monday, 22
  60. Smith M.W., 2017, Adolescent literacies: A handbook of practice‐based research, 169
  61. 10.1177/0895904814550078 · DOI
  62. 10.1145/2674683.2674699 · DOI
  63. Tene O., 2018, Taming the Golem: Challenges of ethical algorithmic decision‐making, North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 19, 125
  64. 10.1080/09500782.2014.921191 · DOI
  65. Turow J., 2017, The aisles have eyes: How retailers track your shopping, strip your privacy, and define your power
  66. Wan T., 2019, US edtech investments peak again with $1.45 billion raised in 2018, EdSurge
  67. Watters A., 2015, The history of the future of education, Hack Education
  68. Wilkinson R., 2010, Teaching dystopian literature to a consumer class, English Journal, 99, 22, 10.58680/ej20109515 · DOI
  69. Williamson B., 2015, Smarter learning software: Education and the big data imaginary
  70. 10.1080/09523987.2017.1407080 · DOI
  71. Woolley S.C., 2019, Computational propaganda: Political parties, politicians, and political manipulation on social media
  72. Wu T., 2016, The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads
  73. Young B.M., 1990, Television advertising and children
  74. 10.1002/jaal.498 · DOI
  75. Zillmann D., 2003, Communication and emotion: Essays in honor of Dolf Zillmann, 533
  76. Zuboff S., 2019, The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hobbs, R.
Affiliations
University of Rhode Island Kingston USA
Venue
Reading Research Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-02-28
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
521-533
ISSN
  • 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2722
DOI
10.1002/rrq.301
OpenAlex
W3008021242
Cited by
85
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3
FWCI
100.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Reading Research Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of Media Literacy Education (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy, Media, and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Linguistics and Education Research
Keywords
algorithmic personalization, propaganda, persuasion, literacy education, K-12 education, advertising, sponsored content, bots, reading practices, targeted advertising, price differentiation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review