English:Media Literacy and Disinformation
Media Literacy and Disinformation
Introduction
Media Literacy and Disinformation helps you make better decisions in a world of news reports, social media posts, videos, podcasts, advertisements, search results, memes, and AI-generated content. Media literacy is not about distrusting everything. It is about asking useful questions, checking evidence, understanding how messages are made, and deciding when a claim is reliable enough to use or share.
For Grades 9–10, the central challenge is to move from a quick reaction to a reasoned judgment. A polished video can be wrong. A rough-looking website can contain accurate evidence. A source can have a point of view and still report facts carefully. A true photograph can become misleading when it is given a false date or caption. Your task is therefore not simply to label content "real" or "fake," but to examine source, evidence, context, and intent.
The Wikimedia image above represents protection from misinformation and disinformation. Think of media literacy as a set of protective habits: pause, investigate, compare, trace, and communicate responsibly.
The TED-Ed video above introduces an important idea: news reaches you through choices made by reporters, editors, platforms, and audiences. After watching, identify one choice that can influence how a story is presented without automatically making the story false.
Learning Goals
By the end of this aiMOOC, you should be able to explain the difference between misinformation and disinformation, evaluate the credibility of a source, distinguish claims from evidence, use lateral reading, trace images and quotations to their original context, recognize common manipulation techniques, explain how algorithms can shape information exposure, analyze propaganda and persuasion, evaluate AI-generated or manipulated media, and create a clear fact-check that communicates uncertainty responsibly.
You will also practice a key English-language skill: reading closely enough to notice wording, tone, loaded language, missing context, and the difference between what a source states, what it implies, and what the available evidence actually supports.
Media Literacy: More Than Spotting Falsehoods
Media literacy combines critical reading, listening, viewing, research, and creation. It asks you to consider both the message and the system around the message.
A useful starting set of questions is:
- Authorship: Who created or published this message, and what can you learn about them from independent sources?
- Purpose: Is the message mainly trying to inform, persuade, entertain, sell, mobilize, or provoke?
- Evidence: What evidence is offered, and can you inspect the original source?
- Context: When and where was the information created, and what happened before or after the quoted moment?
- Audience: Who seems to be the intended audience, and what assumptions does the message make about that audience?
- Technique: How do headline, image, music, editing, statistics, layout, or emotional language shape your reaction?
- Corroboration: What do independent and credible sources say about the same claim?
A credible source is not a source that agrees with you. It is a source that gives you good reasons to trust its process: clear authorship, relevant expertise, evidence, transparent corrections, accurate quotation, and a track record that can be checked. None of these features guarantees truth by itself. You build confidence by combining several checks.
Facts, Claims, Opinions, and Evidence
A claim is a statement that can be evaluated. "The school library closes at 4:00 p.m." is a claim. The official timetable, a notice from the library, or a direct statement from the librarian could serve as evidence. An opinion expresses a judgment or preference, such as "The library should stay open later." Opinions can be supported by reasons, but they are not verified in exactly the same way as factual claims.
Be especially careful with statements that mix fact and judgment. "The new rule reduced late arrivals by 20 percent and is obviously the best policy" contains a numerical claim and an opinion. You should verify the numerical claim separately from the value judgment.
Evidence also has different strengths. A screenshot can show that something appeared on a screen, but it may not prove who created it, when it was posted, or whether it was altered. A quotation can be accurate word for word yet misleading if the surrounding sentences change its meaning. A chart can contain real numbers but use a cut-off axis or selective time range to exaggerate a pattern.
Information Disorder: Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information shared without the intention to deceive. A student might repost an old storm warning because they believe it is current.
Disinformation is false or misleading information created or spread with the knowledge that it is false or misleading, usually to deceive, manipulate, gain influence, or produce some other advantage.
Malinformation describes genuine information used in a harmful or misleading way, often by removing important context, exposing private material, or presenting authentic content so that audiences draw an inaccurate conclusion.
These categories focus partly on intent, and intent can be difficult to prove. If you cannot establish intent, describe what you can show: for example, "This image is from 2022, not from the event named in the post" or "The clip removes the answer that came immediately before this sentence." Strong fact-checking avoids mind-reading.
Why the Term "Fake News" Can Be Too Vague
"Fake news" is common in everyday language, but it can blur important differences. It may refer to a fabricated article, a misleading headline, satire, propaganda, a false rumor, or simply reporting that someone dislikes. For careful analysis, name the specific problem: fabricated claim, false context, manipulated media, unsupported assertion, satire, or unverified information.
This precision matters because the response should match the problem. Satire needs context, not a fact-check written as if the joke were a secret conspiracy. An honest error should be corrected. A deliberately fabricated network may require investigation into coordination and funding. An unverified breaking-news claim may simply need time before a conclusion is possible.
How False or Misleading Information Spreads
False or misleading information can travel through many routes: private messages, public posts, recommendation systems, influencers, news commentary, memes, reposts, search results, and offline conversation. A false claim may be created intentionally but later spread by people who sincerely believe it. That means the same piece of content can move from disinformation to misinformation as it travels.
Speed is not the only issue. Repetition can make a claim feel familiar. Social proof can also matter: a post with many likes or shares may look trustworthy even when those reactions do not verify the evidence. Treat popularity as information about attention, not as proof of accuracy.
How Disinformation Persuades
Disinformation often succeeds not because it is perfectly convincing, but because it fits existing beliefs, creates urgency, or makes checking feel unnecessary. Common techniques include:
- Emotional appeal: Using fear, anger, disgust, pride, or excitement to push you toward an immediate reaction.
- False dilemma: Presenting only two choices when more possibilities exist.
- Cherry picking: Selecting only evidence that supports one conclusion while ignoring relevant counter-evidence.
- Impersonation: Copying the appearance or name of a trusted person or organization.
- False context: Using authentic material with an incorrect date, place, caption, or explanation.
- Fabrication: Inventing a quotation, statistic, event, document, image, or account.
- Conspiratorial framing: Claiming a hidden coordinated plot while treating missing evidence as further proof of secrecy.
- Clickbait: Using curiosity gaps, exaggeration, or shock to win attention or advertising revenue.
- Astroturfing: Making organized messaging look like spontaneous public support.
- Trolling: Provoking conflict or distraction, sometimes without a stable factual claim at all.
A manipulation technique is a clue to slow down, not automatic proof that a claim is false. A dramatic headline may still report a real event. A calm-looking chart may still mislead. Verify the underlying claim.
Language as a Persuasion Tool
English wording matters. Compare these two sentences:
Sentence A: "The council changed the bus schedule after a six-month review."
Sentence B: "The council suddenly wrecked the bus schedule after months of secret planning."
Both sentences can refer to the same event, but the second adds evaluative and emotional language. Words such as "wrecked" and "secret" create a frame that requires evidence of its own. When you analyze media, underline words that describe verifiable events and circle words that communicate judgment, certainty, blame, or emotion.
Also watch for vague authority phrases such as "experts say," "people are saying," or "research proves." Ask: Which experts? Which people? Which research? A strong source should let you follow the evidence trail.
Source Evaluation: Who Is Behind the Information?
The Crash Course video above focuses on source credibility. Your goal is not to find a source with no perspective; every source has a position, purpose, and context. Your goal is to determine whether the source is qualified for the specific claim and whether its methods are transparent and checkable.
Investigate the Source, Not Just the Page
A professional-looking website can be built quickly. Instead of judging mainly by design, leave the page and search for information about the publisher. This is called lateral reading.
Questions to ask include:
- Publisher: Who owns or operates the site or account?
- Expertise: Does the author have relevant knowledge for this exact topic?
- Reputation: How do independent sources describe the publisher?
- Funding: Are important sponsors, donors, advertisers, or conflicts of interest disclosed?
- Standards: Does the organization explain its editorial process and corrections policy?
- History: Has it repeatedly published major errors or deceptive material?
Do not use a single shortcut such as a domain ending, a verification badge, follower count, or professional design as your decision rule. These features can provide context, but they do not replace evidence.
The SIFT Method and Lateral Reading
The SIFT method gives you four practical moves for online verification:
- Stop: Pause before believing or sharing. Notice whether the content is pushing you toward an instant emotional reaction.
- Investigate the source: Learn what the source is and what reputation it has.
- Find better coverage: Look for stronger reporting or expert sources that address the same claim.
- Trace claims to the original context: Follow quotations, images, statistics, and reports back to the earliest reliable source you can find.
Lateral reading means opening new tabs and checking what other sources say about a site, author, claim, or image. It is different from staying on one page and reading every word before deciding whether the source deserves your attention.
After the video, practice with a low-stakes claim such as the opening date of a museum, a sports record, or a scientific fact. First inspect the original page. Then open new tabs, investigate the publisher, and compare independent sources. Record which method gave you useful credibility information faster.
A Five-Step Verification Routine
When a post makes a factual claim, use this routine:
- Identify the claim: Rewrite the exact factual claim in one neutral sentence.
- Locate the source: Find the original account, article, document, video, or dataset if possible.
- Check the source: Use lateral reading to investigate expertise, reputation, and possible conflicts of interest.
- Compare evidence: Look for independent, credible coverage and primary evidence.
- State a calibrated conclusion: Use labels such as supported, false, misleading, unverified, or missing context only when the evidence justifies them.
"Unverified" is a legitimate conclusion. Media literacy does not require you to decide everything immediately.
Fact-Checking in Practice
The IFLA infographic above offers a compact checklist. Treat it as a starting point rather than a mechanical scorecard. For example, spelling mistakes may be a warning sign, but accurate reporting can contain typos, and sophisticated disinformation can be perfectly edited.
A good fact-check makes its reasoning visible. It identifies the claim, shows the strongest available evidence, links or names original sources, explains missing context, and makes a conclusion that matches the evidence. If important facts are uncertain, say so.
Images, Video, and AI-Generated Media
A deepfake is synthetic or manipulated media, often produced with machine-learning techniques, that can make a person appear to say or do something they did not say or do. AI-generated images, cloned voices, face swaps, and edited videos can be used for art, accessibility, satire, entertainment, fraud, harassment, or disinformation. The technology itself does not tell you the intent.
Visual inspection alone is becoming less reliable. Strange hands, odd reflections, or unnatural blinking may sometimes reveal manipulation, but these clues can disappear as tools improve. Stronger verification asks about provenance: Where did the file come from? Who first published it? Is there an original recording? Do independent sources show the same event? Can you trace the image to an earlier use?
The DW News fact-checking video above shows practical approaches to checking visual media. When investigating an image or clip, combine several techniques rather than relying on one "AI detector" or one visual clue.
Image and Video Verification Techniques
Useful techniques include:
- Reverse image search: Search for earlier appearances of an image and compare dates and captions.
- Keyframe search: Capture clear frames from a video and search them as still images.
- Geolocation: Compare visible landmarks, road signs, landscape, language, or building shapes with reliable maps and photographs.
- Chronolocation: Check whether weather, shadows, vegetation, known events, or upload history match the claimed time.
- Source tracing: Find the earliest available upload or the original photographer, broadcaster, or organization.
- Metadata: Inspect file information when available, but remember that metadata can be removed or altered.
- Cross-checking: Ask whether independent witnesses or reliable organizations documented the same event.
Never assume that "no search result" means an image is fake. It may be new, private, poorly indexed, or cropped. Your conclusion should reflect what you can prove.
Algorithms, Feeds, Filter Bubbles, and Echo Chambers
A filter bubble is a model for how personalized systems may limit the range of information a user encounters. An echo chamber describes a social environment in which similar views are repeated and opposing information is discounted or excluded. The concepts are related but not identical.
Real information environments are usually messier than a closed bubble. You may still encounter opposing views, random content, advertisements, or news from outside your usual network. The useful media-literacy question is not "Am I trapped in a perfect bubble?" but "What patterns in my feed might shape what feels normal, popular, or true?"
Recommendation systems can rank content using many signals, such as what you watch, click, skip, search, or share. Platforms do not all use the same systems, and those systems change. You can reduce overconfidence by intentionally consulting multiple high-quality sources, including sources that explain their evidence and correct mistakes.
Popularity Is Not Verification
Likes, shares, comments, views, trending labels, and follower counts measure forms of attention. They do not directly measure truth. A claim may become popular because it is funny, shocking, useful, frightening, or repeated by large accounts.
When a post is viral, separate two questions:
Question 1: Why is this getting attention?
Question 2: What evidence supports the factual claim?
The answers may be completely different.
Propaganda, Persuasion, Advertising, and Disinformation
The historical poster above was produced by the United Kingdom government during World War II. It is useful for analyzing propaganda because propaganda aims to influence attitudes or behavior for a cause. Propaganda is not automatically false. It can use true information, selective information, emotional symbols, slogans, or appeals to group identity.
Advertising also aims to persuade, usually in relation to products, services, brands, or behavior. public service messages may persuade people to take socially useful actions. Disinformation, by contrast, depends on false or misleading content and deceptive intent.
When you analyze persuasive media, ask two separate questions: How is this trying to influence me? and Are its factual claims accurate? Persuasion and factual accuracy are different dimensions.
Wikipedia, Search Engines, and AI Assistants as Starting Points
Wikipedia can be a useful starting point for orientation, vocabulary, and references, especially when you inspect citations and article history. It should not automatically be the final source for every assignment. Follow important claims to the cited source and decide whether that source fits your purpose.
Search engines rank pages; they do not certify every result as true. Sponsored results, search-engine optimization, freshness, popularity, location, and personalization can affect what appears first.
AI assistants can summarize, explain, and help generate search terms, but they can also produce incorrect or invented details. For important factual work, treat an AI answer as a lead to verify, not as self-authenticating evidence. Ask for sources, open the sources yourself, and check whether they actually support the claim.
Bias, Fairness, and Open-Minded Skepticism
Everyone has prior beliefs, preferences, experiences, and expectations. Confirmation bias is the tendency to notice, seek, or interpret information in ways that support what you already believe. Recognizing this tendency does not mean that all viewpoints are equally supported by evidence.
A useful habit is open-minded skepticism: require evidence for claims you agree with as well as claims you dislike. Ask yourself, "What evidence would change my mind?" If the answer is "nothing," you are no longer evaluating evidence.
Do not confuse bias with falsity. A newspaper can have an editorial perspective and still report a specific event accurately. A neutral tone can hide weak evidence. Judge individual claims through evidence, sourcing, and context.
Responsible Sharing and Correction
Before sharing information, consider the possible effect on other people. A false accusation, an out-of-context image, or a private document can cause harm even if you later delete the post.
A responsible sharing routine is:
- Pause: Do not share only because you feel anger, fear, or excitement.
- Check: Verify the source, date, context, and strongest factual claim.
- Limit amplification: If you are correcting a harmful falsehood, avoid repeating it more than necessary.
- Protect privacy: Do not expose private details that are irrelevant to verification.
- Correct clearly: If you shared something wrong, update or remove it and state what changed.
- Keep uncertainty visible: Do not turn "possibly" into "definitely" when evidence is incomplete.
A correction is a sign of good information practice. Reliable journalism, science, and research improve by updating conclusions when better evidence appears.
A Classroom Protocol for Disputed Claims
When classmates disagree about a claim, focus on the evidence instead of attacking people. Use this sequence:
- Neutral wording: State the claim without loaded language.
- Shared evidence: Identify sources that everyone can inspect.
- Source check: Investigate who produced the evidence and whether they have relevant expertise.
- Context check: Look for missing dates, locations, quotations, or comparison data.
- Independent check: Find credible sources that did not simply copy one another.
- Conclusion: State what is supported, what is not supported, and what remains uncertain.
This process helps turn disagreement into investigation.
Mini Case Studies
Case Study: The Old Photograph
A post says, "This photo shows flooding in our city today." The photograph is real, but a reverse image search finds the same picture in a newspaper article from four years earlier in another country.
Analysis: The image itself is authentic, but the new caption supplies false context. You can correct the claim by showing the earlier publication and explaining the mismatch in date and location. You do not need to prove who changed the caption unless you are making a claim about intent.
Case Study: The Screenshot of a Statistic
A screenshot says, "A new study proves that students who use phones score 50 percent lower." There is no author, link, date, sample size, or study title.
Analysis: The statement is not verifiable from the screenshot alone. Search the exact wording, identify the original study if it exists, inspect its methods, and compare reporting from credible sources. The phrase "proves" may be stronger than the research supports.
Case Study: The Edited Interview Clip
A 12-second clip appears to show a scientist giving a surprising answer. The full interview shows that the clip begins after a question was cut and ends before the scientist explains an important limitation.
Analysis: The words in the clip may be authentic, but editing can remove context. Trace the video to the complete recording and quote the relevant section fairly.
Case Study: The AI-Generated Emergency Image
A dramatic image claims to show damage from an ongoing emergency. The image has no clear original photographer, and trusted local sources show different conditions.
Analysis: Do not decide from visual clues alone. Investigate the account, search for earlier uploads, compare independent reporting, and look for official or on-the-ground documentation. If you cannot establish authenticity, label the image unverified rather than inventing certainty.
Build Your Own Verification Toolkit
Your toolkit can include browser tabs, reverse image search, official public records, library databases, reputable news archives, academic sources, maps, weather records, image metadata tools, and established fact-checking organizations. The best tool depends on the claim.
For a scientific claim, look for the original study and qualified scientific interpretation. For an election procedure, check the relevant official election authority. For a local school schedule, check the school or district. For a historical quotation, consult reliable archives or scholarly editions. Expertise should match the question.
Most importantly, use tools to answer a clear question. Collecting more links does not automatically produce better verification. Ask what evidence would actually confirm or disconfirm the claim.
Interactive Tasks
Quiz: Test Your Knowledge
Which description best matches disinformation? (False or misleading information knowingly spread to deceive) (!Accurate information shared by a trusted source) (!An opinion that another person disagrees with) (!Any news story with a dramatic headline)
What is the main purpose of lateral reading? (To investigate a source by checking independent information outside the original page) (!To read every sentence on one webpage before opening another tab) (!To judge credibility only from spelling and page design) (!To count how many advertisements appear on a page)
A real photograph is posted with the wrong date and location. What is the main problem? (False context) (!A spelling error) (!A broken hyperlink) (!A private opinion)
Which action is the best first response to a shocking viral claim? (Pause before sharing and identify the exact claim) (!Share it quickly before the post disappears) (!Assume it is false because it is emotional) (!Judge it only by the number of likes)
Which item is strongest as evidence for what a scientific study actually found? (The original study read together with qualified interpretation) (!A meme that summarizes the study) (!An anonymous comment below a video) (!A headline with no link to the research)
What does a high view count prove? (That the content received a lot of attention) (!That the factual claim is accurate) (!That the publisher is politically neutral) (!That the content has been independently verified)
Which statement about propaganda is most accurate? (Propaganda aims to influence attitudes or behavior and is not automatically false) (!Propaganda is always a completely fabricated story) (!Propaganda exists only on social media) (!Propaganda and advertising are exactly the same thing)
What should you do when the available evidence is not enough for a conclusion? (Label the claim unverified and explain what evidence is missing) (!Choose the answer that matches your first impression) (!Treat uncertainty as proof that the claim is false) (!Repeat the claim until more people recognize it)
Which method is most useful for checking whether an image appeared online years earlier? (Reverse image search) (!Counting the colors in the image) (!Reading only the current caption) (!Checking how many emojis are in the post)
Why should an AI-generated answer be checked against sources? (Because AI systems can produce incorrect or invented details) (!Because AI systems never summarize information) (!Because AI systems cannot process written language) (!Because every source found by AI is automatically false)
Memory Game
| Misinformation | False information shared without an intention to deceive |
| Disinformation | False or misleading information knowingly spread to deceive |
| Lateral reading | Checking credibility by consulting sources outside the original page |
| Primary source | Original evidence such as a document, dataset, interview, or recording |
| Clickbait | Attention-seeking wording designed to attract clicks |
| Deepfake | Synthetic or manipulated media produced with machine-learning techniques |
Drag and Drop
| Match the correct terms. | Topic |
|---|---|
| Stop before sharing | First SIFT move |
| Investigate the publisher | Source evaluation |
| Compare independent reporting | Corroboration |
| Find the earliest version | Trace original context |
| State what remains uncertain | Calibrated conclusion |
...
Crossword Puzzle
| Credibility | What quality describes whether a source deserves trust for a specific claim? |
| Context | What surrounding information can change the meaning of a quotation or image? |
| Evidence | What supports or challenges a factual claim? |
| Algorithm | What set of computational rules can help rank content in a feed? |
| Deepfake | What synthetic or manipulated medium can imitate a person's appearance or voice? |
| Verification | What process checks whether a claim is supported? |
LearningApps
Cloze Text
Open-Ended Tasks
Easy
- Source check: Choose a low-stakes website or social media account, investigate who publishes it, and write a five-sentence credibility note using two independent sources.
- Headline analysis: Collect three headlines about the same non-sensitive event, highlight loaded or emotional words, and rewrite each headline in neutral language without changing the verified facts.
- Image context: Use a reverse image search on a teacher-approved image, find an earlier appearance, and create a short caption explaining what changed between the original context and a later use.
- Media literacy explainer: Create a one-minute audio or video message for classmates that explains the difference between misinformation and disinformation with an original fictional example.
Standard
- Fact-checking trail: Verify one school-safe factual claim by documenting the claim, original source, two independent checks, strongest evidence, and final conclusion in a one-page fact-check.
- Interview about verification: Interview a librarian, journalist, teacher, researcher, or other information professional about how they verify claims, then compare the interviewee's method with the SIFT approach.
- Classroom sharing experiment: In a closed classroom activity using clearly fictional posts, record which headline styles classmates are most tempted to share and discuss why attention is not the same as accuracy.
- Local information visit: Visit a library, archive, newsroom, museum, university, or public information office in person or virtually and create a photo essay or report showing how that institution preserves evidence or corrects errors.
Advanced
- Viral claim investigation: Select a teacher-approved viral claim, trace it as far back as possible, map how the wording or media changed across reposts, and explain where verification becomes uncertain.
- Video fact-check: Produce a two- to three-minute fact-check video that shows your source trail on screen, distinguishes evidence from opinion, and avoids unnecessary repetition of the false claim.
- Recommendation feed audit: Over several days, record broad content categories recommended on a platform without collecting private information, then analyze how your own interactions may have influenced the pattern and identify limits in your evidence.
- Media literacy campaign: Design a school campaign with posters, a short video, and a written guide that teaches students how to pause, investigate, corroborate, trace context, and correct mistakes responsibly.
Learning Assessment
- Comparative source evaluation: Evaluate two sources that make the same factual claim but use different evidence, then argue which source is more reliable for that specific claim and why.
- Context reconstruction: Given a cropped quotation, image, or short clip, reconstruct the wider context from original material and explain how the meaning changes.
- Verification transfer: Apply the five-step verification routine to a new topic you have not studied in this course and justify every source choice.
- Manipulation analysis: Analyze a persuasive message for emotional language, framing, omissions, and evidence, then separate techniques of persuasion from questions of factual accuracy.
- Uncertainty judgment: Review a case with incomplete evidence and write a conclusion that clearly distinguishes what is known, what is likely, and what remains unverified.
- Responsible correction: Rewrite a weak or harmful correction so that it presents accurate information clearly, protects privacy, avoids unnecessary amplification, and names the evidence used.
Evidence of Learning
Knowledge: You can accurately distinguish misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, propaganda, opinion, evidence, false context, clickbait, deepfakes, filter bubbles, and echo chambers.
Skills: You can identify a checkable claim, investigate a source laterally, find independent coverage, trace original evidence, verify images and video, compare sources, detect loaded language, and communicate uncertainty.
Products: Strong evidence may include a source-evaluation note, a documented fact-check, a reverse-image-search record, an interview summary, a media analysis, a verification map, a poster, an explainer video, or a school media-literacy campaign.
Reasoning: You can explain why popularity is not proof, why bias is not the same as falsity, why true media can still mislead through false context, and why a conclusion should be no stronger than the available evidence.
Transfer: You can use the same verification habits in English classes, history, science, civic education, vocational training, workplace communication, and everyday online life.
Responsible practice: You correct mistakes, protect privacy, avoid personal attacks, distinguish uncertainty from falsehood, and choose not to amplify harmful material unnecessarily.
OERs on the Topic
The English Wikipedia article on Media literacy can provide a useful overview and a path to additional references. Use it as a starting point, then follow important claims to their cited sources.
For deeper study, connect this course with Information literacy, Digital literacy, Fact-checking, Journalism, Propaganda, Source criticism, Critical thinking, Deepfake, and Artificial intelligence literacy.
Linked Learning Areas
This aiMOOC connects English-language learning with reading comprehension, argumentation, rhetoric, research, digital citizenship, journalism, civic education, social studies, and responsible use of artificial intelligence.
aiMOOC Projects
MOOCwiki · Deutsch
Nach dem Lernen ist vor dem Lernen
Entdecke direkt den nächsten Lernkurs. Weitere Inhalte erscheinen, wenn Du weiter nach unten scrollst.
Zur MOOCwiki-HauptseiteMediathek
Mediathek
Mediathek wird aus dem Wiki geladen ...
Keine passenden Inhalte gefunden. Bitte ändere Suche oder Filter.