Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As concerns about digital misinformation proliferate, scholars have evaluated a range of interventions to support people to detect misinformation and identify credible sources. One approach involves teaching lateral reading—opening new browser tabs to search for more information about the credibility of a source or the accuracy of its claims via additional credible sources. We investigated students’ reasoning as they discussed how they researched the credibility of sources or corroborated the accuracy of claims during an intervention in which both these processes were introduced as lateral reading. Our results suggest that judging source credibility and verifying the accuracy of claims involve different reasoning processes that deserve to be taught separately to prepare students to find credible information online.

Keywords

digital media literacy lateral reading teacher learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anmarkrud

Bråten

Florit

Mason

(2022). The role of individual differences in sourcing: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 749–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09640-7

Aslett

Sanderson

Godel

Persily

Nagler

Tucker

J. A.

(2024). Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity. Nature, 625, 548–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015). Framework for information literacy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Axelsson

C. W.

Guath

Nygren

(2021). Learning how to separate fake from real news: Scalable digital tutorials promoting students’ civic online reasoning. Future Internet, 13(3), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13030060

Bain

R. B.

(2004). “They thought the world was flat?”: Applying the principles of how people learn in teaching high school history. In Donovan

M. S.

Bransford

J. D.

(Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 31–78). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10126

Barzilai

Mor-Hagani

Abed

Tal-Savir

Goldik

Talmon

Davidow

(2023). Misinformation is contagious: Middle schools students learn how to evaluate and share information responsibly through a digital game. Computers & Education, 202, 104832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104832

Bråten

Brandmo

Kammerer

(2019). A validation study of the Internet-Specific Epistemic Justification Inventory with Norwegian preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(4), 877–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118769438

Breakstone

Smith

Connors

Ortega

Kerr

Wineburg

(2021). Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56

Brodsky

J. E.

Brooks

P. J.

Pavlounis

Johnston

J. L.

(2023). Instruction increases Canadian students’ preference for and use of lateral reading strategies to fact-check online information. AERA Open, 9, 23328584231192106. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231192106

10.

Brodsky

J. E.

Lodhi

A. K.

Messina

Brooks

P. J.

(2022). Fact-checking instruction strengthens the association between attitudes and use of lateral reading strategies in college students. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 44. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3882t34s

11.

Brodsky

J. E.

Brooks

P. J.

Scimeca

Galati

Todorova

Caulfield

(2021). Associations between online instruction in lateral reading strategies and fact checking COVID-19 news among college students. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211038937

12.

Brodsky

J. E.

Brooks

P. J.

Scimeca

Todorova

Galati

Batson

Grosso

Matthews

Miller

Caulfield

(2021). Improving college students’ fact checking strategies through lateral reading instruction in a general education civics course. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00291-4

13.

Caulfield

(2019). SIFT: The four moves. https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/

14.

Cole

Wertsch

J. V.

(1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39(5), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1159/000278475

15.

Cook

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

(2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One, 12(5), e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799

16.

Fazio

L. K.

Rand

D. G.

Lewandowsky

Susmann

Berinsky

A. J.

Guess

A. M.

Kendeou

Lyons

Miller

J. M.

Newman

Pennycook

Swire-Thompson

(2024). Combating misinformation: A megastudy of nine interventions designed to reduce the sharing of and belief in false and misleading headlines. PsyArXix Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uyjha

17.

Fendt

Nistor

Scheibenzuber

Artmann

(2023). Sourcing against misinformation: Effects of a scalable lateral reading training based on cognitive apprenticeship. Computers in Human Behavior, 146, 107820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107820

18.

Ferguson

L. E.

Bråten

(2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.003

19.

Ferguson

L. E.

Bråten

Strømsø

H. I.

(2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific information: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22, 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002

20.

Fowler

(2020, June 5). You are probably spreading misinformation. Here's how to stop. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/05/stopspreading-misinformation/

21.

Greeno

J. G.

Collins

A. M.

Resnick

(1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner

D. C.

Calfee

R. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). Macmillan.

22.

Hilligoss

Rieh

S. Y.

(2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management, 44, 1467–1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001

23.

Hofer

B. K.

Pintrich

P. R.

(1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170620

24.

Hovland

C. I.

Janis

I. L.

Kelley

H. H.

(1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.

25.

Hutchinson

Hammer

(2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education, 94(3), 506–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20373

26.

Kazemi

Stipek

(2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/499693

27.

Kiili

Strømsø

Bråten

Ruotsalainen

Räikkönen

(2024). Reading comprehension skills and prior topic knowledge serve as resources when adolescents justify the credibility of multiple online texts. Reading Psychology, 45(7), 662–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2024.2351485

28.

Kovach

Rosentiel

(2001). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect. Three Rivers Press.

29.

Kozyreva

Lorenz-Spreen

Herzog

S. M.

Ecker

U. K. H.

Lewandowsky

Hertwig

Ali

Bak-Coleman

Barzilai

Basol

Berinsky

A. J.

Betsch

Cook

Fazio

L. K.

Geers

Guess

A. M.

Huang

Larreguy

Maertens

. . .Wineburg

(2024). Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nature Human Behavior, 8, 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562024-01881-0

30.

Kuhn

(2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.

31.

Lee

A. Y.

Moore

R. C.

Hancock

J. T.

(2024). Building resilience to misinformation in communities of color: Results from two studies of tailored digital media literacy interventions. New Media & Society, 27(6), 3545–3576. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241227841

32.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

Cook

van der Linden

Roozenbeek

Oreskes

(2024). Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy. Current Opinion in Psychology, 24, 101711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101711

33.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Ecker

U. K. H.

Albarracín

Amazeen

Kendeou

Lombardi

Newman

E. J.

Pennycook

Porter

E. R. D. G.

Rapp

D. N.

Reifler

Roozenbeek

Schmid

Seifert

C. M.

Sinatra

G. M.

Swire-Thompson

van der Linden

Vraga

E. K.

. . .Zaragoza

M. S.

(2020). Debunking handbook 2020. Databrary. https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182

34.

Martel

Rand

D. G.

(2024). Misinformation warning labels are widely effective: A review of warning effects and their moderating features. Current Opinion in Psychology, 54, 101710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101710

35.

McGrew

(2022). Bridge or byway? Teaching historical reading and civic online reasoning in a U.S. history class. Theory & Research in Social Education, 50(2), 196–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2021.1997844

36.

McGrew

(2021). Challenging approaches: Sharing and responding to weak digital heuristics in class discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 108, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103512

37.

McGrew

(2020). Learning to evaluate: An intervention in online reasoning. Computers & Education, 145, 103711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103711

38.

McGrew

Byrne

V. B.

(2022). Conversations after lateral reading: Supporting teachers to focus on process, not content. Computers & Education, 185, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104519

39.

McGrew

Reynolds

E. C.

Glass

A. C.

(2024). The problem with perspective: Teachers’ and students’ reasoning about credibility during discussions of online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 42(3), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2024.2340981

40.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

41.

Moore

R. C.

Hancock

J. T.

(2022). A digital media literacy intervention for older adults improves resilience to fake news. Scientific Reports, 2, 6008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08437-0

42.

News Literacy Project. (n.d.). Expand your view with lateral reading. https://newslit.org/tips-tools/expand-your-view-with-lateral-reading/

43.

Nygren

Guath

(2022). Students evaluating and corroborating digital news. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(4), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1897876

44.

Nygren

Guath

Axelsson

C. W.

Frau-Meigs

(2021). Combatting visual fake news with a professional fact-checking tools in education in France, Romania, Spain and Sweden. Information, 12(5), 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12050201

45.

Panizza

Ronzani

Martini

Mattavelli

Morisseau

Motterlini

(2022). Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science. Scientific Reports, 12, 5678. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09168-y

46.

Reisman

(2015). Entering the historical problem space: Whole-class, text-based discussion in history class. Teachers College Record, 117(2), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700206

47.

Reynolds

E. C.

McGrew

(2025). “From personal experience, it's true!”: Students’ credibility judgments on relevant issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 34(5), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2025.2495214

48.

Strauss

Corbin

(2015). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.

49.

Tripodi

F. B.

(2022). The propagandists’ playbook: How conservative elites manipulate search and undermine democracy. Yale University Press.

50.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

51.

Wineburg

(1991a). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.7

52.

Wineburg

(1991b). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028003495

53.

Wineburg

McGrew

(2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record, 121, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912101102

54.

Wineburg

Breakstone

McGrew

Smith

Ortega

(2022). Lateral reading on the open internet: A district-wide field study in high school government classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000740

55.

Wolfe

M. B.

Goldman

S. R.

(2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467–502. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2

56.

Zhang

Pradeep

(2023). ReadProbe: A demo of retrieval-enhanced large language models to support lateral reading. arXiv:2306.07875. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.07875

Discussing Credibility and Corroboration: Students’ Reasoning About Digital Sources and Claims During Lateral Reading Lessons

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References