Student evaluations of the credibility and argumentation of online sources

References

• Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 141–166). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Broniatowski, D. A., Jamison, A. M., Qi, S., AlKulaib, L., Chen, T., Benton, A., Quinn, S. C., & Dredze, M. (2018). Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. American Journal of Public Health, 108(10), 1378–1384. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-Y., Li, C.-M., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Health information obtained from the Internet and changes in medical decision making: Questionnaire development and cross-sectional survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(2), e47. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coiro, J., Coscarelli, C., Maykel, C., & Forzani, E. (2015). Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooligan, H. (2017). Research methods and statistics in psychology (6th ed.). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, C. (2013). SPSS for applied sciences: Basic statistical testing. CSIRO Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ditto, P. H., Scepansky, J. A., Munro, G. D., Apanovitch, A. M., & Lockhart, L. K. (1998). Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.53
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2019). Organisation of general upper secondary education. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/organisation-general-upper-secondary-education-15_en
   Google Scholar
• Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger, & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–28). The MIT Press, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Fong, C. J., Kim, Y., Davis, C. W., Hoang, T., & Kim, Y. W. (2017). A meta-analysis on critical thinking and community college student achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants [Paper presentation]. The Proceedings of the Conference on Designing for User Experiences, San Francisco, CA, June 6-7 (pp. 1–15). https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997097
   Google Scholar
• Forzani, E. (2016). Individual differences in evaluating the credibility of online information in science: Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Connecticut. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ElenaForzani2/publication/311559938
   Google Scholar
• Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. National Council of Teachers of English.
   Google Scholar
• Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. A., Cartiff, B. M., Duke, R. F., & Deekens, V. M. (2019). A nation of curators. Educating students to be critical consumers and users of online information. In P. Kendeou, D. H. Robinson, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Misinformation and fake news in education (pp. 187–206). Information age publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Holopainen, L., Kairaluoma, L., Nevala, J., Ahonen, T., & Aro, M. (2004). Lukivaikeuksien seulontatesti nuorille ja aikuisille [Dyslexia screening test for youth and adults]. Niilo Mäki Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Horrigan, J., & Rainie, L. (2006). The internet’s growing role in life’s major moments. Pew Research Center Publication, Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/2006/04/19/the-internets-growing-role-in-lifes-major-moments/
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216679817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kammerer, Y., Amann, D., & Gerjets, P. (2015). When adults without university education search the Internet for health information: The roles of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kammerer, Y., Kalbfell, E., & Gerjets, P. (2016). Is this information source commercially biased? How contradictions between web pages stimulate the consideration of source information. Discourse Processes, 53(5-6), 430–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1169968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., & Marttunen, M. (2008). Students evaluating Internet sources: From versatile evaluators to uncritical readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.39.1.e
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiili, C., Leu, D. J., Marttunen, M., Hautala, J., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2018). Exploring early adolescents' evaluation of academic and commercial online resources related to health. Reading and Writing, 31(3), 533–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9797-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just laugh! You don’t need to remember: The effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00388.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiuru, N., Haverinen, K., Salmela-Aro, K., Nurmi, J.-E., Savolainen, H., & Holopainen, L. (2011). Students with reading and spelling disabilities: Peer groups and educational attainment in secondary education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410392043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25(3), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490489908
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H. Y., & List, A. (2019). Processing of texts and videos: A strategy-focused analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies and the new literacies of online reading comprehension: A dual level theory. In N. Unrau, & D. Alvermann (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar
• Maksl, A., Ashley, S., & Craft, S. (2015). Measuring news media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(3), 29–45. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol6/iss3/3
   Google Scholar
• Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., Litosseliti, L., & Lund, K. (2005). Argumentation skills as prerequisites for collaborative learning among Finnish, French, and English secondary school students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(4), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500110588
   Google Scholar
• McClure, R., & Clink, K. (2009). How do you know that?: An investigation of student research practices in the digital age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 115–132. https:/doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1985). Star Wars: A developmental study of expert and novice knowledge structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(6), 746–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90057-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C., & Bartlett, J. (2012). Digital fluency': Towards young people's critical use of the internet. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.11645/6.2.1714
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument–counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, J., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-R., & Stadtler, M. (2017). Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Computers & Education, 113, 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Topping, D. C. Crowell, & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking (pp. 175–195). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Preiss, D. D., Castillo, J. C., Flotts, P., & San Martín, E. (2013). Assessment of argumentative writing and critical thinking in higher education: Educational correlates and gender differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanford History Education Group. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic responsibility. An executive summary. https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, A., & Dalal, H. A. (2017). Gender and information literacy: Evaluation of gender differences in a student survey of information sources. College & Research Libraries, 78(1), 90–113. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.1.90
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Welfare. (2019). Vaccination coverage. https://thl.fi/en/web/vaccination/vaccination-coverage
   Google Scholar
• Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/301353.301402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tseronis, A. (2018). Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verbal/visual divide. Semiotica, 2018(220), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Utriainen, J., Marttunen, M., Kallio, E., & Tynjälä, P. (2017). University applicants' critical thinking skills: The case of the Finnish educational sciences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(6), 629–649. https:/doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1173092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701524785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Strien, J. L., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2016). How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vraga, E. K., & Tully, M. (2021). News literacy, social media behaviors, and skepticism toward information on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, J. (2010). Librarians and controlling disinformation: Is multi-literacy instruction the answer? Library Review, 59(7), 498–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242531011065091
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (1991). Bias, critical doubt and fallacies. Argumentation and Advocacy, 28(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1991.11951525
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780701527674
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, X., & Yao, Z. (2015). Understanding the role of argument quality in the adoption of online reviews: An empirical study integrating value-based decision and needs theory. Online Information Review, 39(7), 885–902. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2015-0149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, B., & Benbasat, I. (2015). Designing warning messages for detecting biased online product recommendations: An empirical investigation. Information Systems Research, 26(4), 793–811. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2018). Detection and resolution of rumours in social media: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3161603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar