Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-02
Are frequent users of social network sites good information evaluators? An investigation of adolescents’ sourcing abilities (¿Son los usuarios frecuentes de las redes sociales evaluadores competentes? Un estudio de las habilidades de los adolescentes para identificar,evaluar y hacer uso de las fuentes)
This study investigates the relationship between teenagers’ use of social networking sites (SNS) and their sourcing abilities. Sourcing is defined as students’ ability (1) to discriminate reliable and unreliable links based on source characteristics, (2) to value source criteria as means to select information resources and (3) to select reliable texts based on source characteristics. One hundred and forty-six students (M age = 14.7 years old) completed three sourcing tasks, a questionnaire on SNS use, as well as language and memory skills tests. We found that SNS frequency of use negatively predicted both participants’ ability to select the most reliable source among two conflicting sources on the same topic and their ability to cite source features when justifying their choice. SNS frequency of use was unrelated to students’ assessment of source criteria, but vocabulary level was positively related to performance in this task. We discuss various explanations for the observed relationship between teenagers’ SNS communication and their critical appraisal of information sources, and we propose avenues for instructional interventions aimed at fostering information skills.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AillerieK.McNicolS. (2016). Are social networking sites information sources? Informational purposes of high-school students in using SNSs. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 50, 103–114.
BarryC. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 149–159.
5.
BellV.BishopD. V.PrzybylskiA. K. (2015). The debate over digital technology and young people. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online), 351, h3064.
6.
BoydD. M.EllisonN. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
7.
BraaschJ. L.BråtenI.StrømsøH. I.AnmarkrudØ.FergusonL. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students’ evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 180–195.
8.
BraaschJ. L.RouetJ. F.VibertN.BrittM. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450–465.
9.
BraaschJ. L. G.BråtenI. (2017). The Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52, 167–181.
10.
BråtenI.StadtlerM.SalmerónL. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In SchoberM.RappD. N.BrittM. A. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 141–166). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
11.
BrittM. A.RouetJ.-F.DurikA. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension. London: Routledge.
12.
BrommeR.StadtlerM.ScharrerL. (2018). The provenance of certainty: Multiple source use and the public engagement with science. In BraaschJ. L. G.BråtenI.McCruddenM. T. (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 269–284). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
14.
CarpenterJ.Preotiuc-PietroD.ClarkJ.FlekovaL.SmithL.KernM. L.SeligmanM. (2018). The impact of actively open-minded thinking on social media communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 13, 562.
15.
CoiroJ.CoscarelliC.MaykelC.ForzaniE. (2015). Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 287–297.
16.
DeltourJ. J. (1998). Echelle de vocabulaire Mill-Hill de J.-C. Raven, adaptation française. Paris: EAP.
17.
DienlinT.MasurP. K.TrepteS. (2017). Reinforcement or displacement? The reciprocity of FtF, IM, and SNS communication and their effects on loneliness and life satisfaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22, 71–87.
18.
EhmkeT.SiegleT. (2005). ISEI, ISCED, HOMEPOS, ESCS - Indicators of social background for quantifying social disparity. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 8, 521–539.
19.
EllisonN. B.SteinfieldC.LampeC. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.
20.
GignacG. E. (2009). Partial confirmatory factor analysis: Described and illustrated on the NEO–PI–R. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 40–47.
21.
GreenhowC.GibbinsT.MenzerM. M. (2015). Re-thinking scientific literacy out-of-school: Arguing science issues in a niche Facebook application. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 593–604.
22.
HargittaiE.HsiehY. L. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of differentiated practices on social network sites. Information, Communication & Society, 13, 515–536.
23.
HuangC. (2018). Social network site use and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 119, 76–83.
24.
IfinedoP. (2016). Applying uses and gratifications theory and social influence processes to understand students’ pervasive adoption of social networking sites: Perspectives from the Americas. International Journal of Information Management, 36, 192–206.
25.
JacobsenW. C.ForsteR. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 275–280.
26.
JuncoR. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 187–198.
27.
KeckD.KammererY.StarauschekE. (2015). Reading science texts online: Does source information influence the identification of contradictions within texts?Computers & Education, 82, 442–449.
28.
KirschnerP. A.KarpinskiA. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1237–1245.
29.
LeeY. H.WuJ. Y. (2013). The indirect effects of online social entertainment and information seeking activities on reading literacy. Computers & Education, 67, 168–177.
30.
LefavraisP. (1986). La pipe et le rat [Pipe and rat]. Issy-les-Moulineaux, France: Etablissements d’Applications Psychotechniques.
MarkerC.GnambsT.AppelM. (2018). Active on Facebook and failing at school? Meta-analytic findings on the relationship between online social networking activities and academic achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 651–677.
33.
MerktM.WernerM.WagnerW. (2017). Historical thinking skills and mastery of multiple document tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 135–148.
34.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2008). Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
35.
MutzD. C.RobertsD. F.VuurenD. V. (1993). Reconsidering the displacement hypothesis: Television’s influence on children’s time use. Communication Research, 20, 51–75.
36.
NaumannJ. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 263–277.
37.
OECD, European Union, & UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015). ISCED 2011 operational manual: Guidelines for classifying national education programmes and related qualifications. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264228368-en
PaulJ.Macedo-RouetM.RouetJ. F.StadtlerM. (2017). Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Computers & Education, 113, 339–354.
40.
PérezA.PotockiA.StadtlerM.Macedo-RouetM.PaulJ.SalmerónL.RouetJ. F. (2018). Fostering teenagers’ assessment of information reliability: Effects of a classroom intervention focused on critical source dimensions. Learning and Instruction, 58, 53–64.
41.
PerfettiC. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.
42.
PerfettiC. A.RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In van OostendorpH.GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43.
PorschT.BrommeR. (2011). Effects of epistemological sensitization on source choices. Instructional Science, 39, 805–819.
44.
PuhlT.TsovaltziD.WeinbergerA. (2015). Blending Facebook discussions into seminars for practicing argumentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 605–616.
45.
RavenJ. C. (1965). The Mill Hill vocabulary scale. London: H. K. Lewis.
46.
RiehS. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the web. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53, 145–161.
47.
RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In McCruddenM. T.MaglianoJ. P.SchrawG. (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
48.
RouetJ.-F.BrittM. A. (2014). Learning from multiple documents. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 813–841). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
49.
RouetJ. F.BrittM. A.MasonR. A.PerfettiC. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493.
50.
SäälikÜ. (2015). Reading performance, learning strategies, gender and school language as related issues–PISA 2009 findings in Finland and Estonia. International Journal of Teaching & Education, 3, 16–29.
51.
SalmerónL.GarcíaA.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2018). The development of adolescents’ comprehension-based Internet reading skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 31–39.
52.
SalmerónL.Macedo-RouetM.RouetJ.-F. (2016). Multiple viewpoints increase students’ attention to source features in social question and answer forum messages. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2404–2419.
53.
SchleicherA.ZimmerK.EvansJ.ClementsN. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD Publishing (NJ1). Retrieved fromhttps://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/44455820.pdf
54.
StadtlerM.BrommeR. (2014). The content–Source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In RappD. N.BraaschJ. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
StadtlerM.ScharrerL.Macedo-RouetM.RouetJ. F.BrommeR. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29, 705–729.
56.
StrømsøH. I.BråtenI. (2002). Norwegian students’ use of multiple sources while reading expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 208–227.
57.
TessP. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)–A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 60–68.
58.
TsitsikaA. K.TzavelaE. C.JanikianM.ÓlafssonK.IordacheA.SchoenmakersT. M.RichardsonC. (2014). Online social networking in adolescence: Patterns of use in six European countries and links with psychosocial functioning. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 141–147.
59.
VigneauF. (2007). Trois mesures du vocabulaire chez des élèves d’écoles françaises du Nouveau-Brunswick. Revue de l’Université de Moncton, 38, 181–194.
60.
WechslerD. (2005). WISC-IV: Echelle d’Intelligence de Wechsler pour Enfants (4ème Edition) [WISC-IV: Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.)]. Paris: Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
WineburgS. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.
63.
ZhongB.HardinM.SunT. (2011). Less effortful thinking leads to more social networking? The associations between the use of social network sites and personality traits. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1265–1271.
