Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Are today’s students able to discern quality information from sham online? In the largest investigation of its kind, we administered an assessment to 3,446 high school students. Equipped with a live internet connection, the students responded to six constructed-response tasks. The students struggled on all of them. Asked to investigate a site claiming to “disseminate factual reports” on climate science, 96% never learned about the organization’s ties to the fossil fuel industry. Two thirds were unable to distinguish news stories from ads on a popular website’s home page. More than half believed that an anonymously posted Facebook video, shot in Russia, provided “strong evidence” of U.S. voter fraud. Instead of investigating the organization or group behind a site, students were often duped by weak signs of credibility: a website’s “look,” its top-level domain, the content on its About page, and the sheer quantity of information it provided. The study’s sample reflected the demographic profile of high school students in the United States, and a multilevel regression model explored whether scores varied by student characteristics. Findings revealed differences in student abilities by grade level, self-reported grades, locality, socioeconomic status, race, maternal education, and free/reduced-price lunch status. Taken together, these findings reveal an urgent need to prepare students to thrive in a world in which information flows ceaselessly across their screens.

Keywords

assessment regression analyses social studies education technology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashley

Maksl

Craft

(2013). Developing a news media literacy scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 68(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695812469802

Bartlett

Miller

(2011, September). Truth, lies and the internet. Demos. https://www.demos.co.uk/files/Truth_-_web.pdf

Barzilai

Zohar

(2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.636495

Breakstone

McGrew

Smith

Ortega

Wineburg

(2018). Why we need a new approach to teaching digital literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(6), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718762419

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), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56

Brodsky

Brooks

P. J.

Scimeca

Todorova

Galati

Batson

Grosso

Matthews

Miller

Tachiera

Caulfield

(2019, October 3–5). Teaching college students the four moves of expert fact-checkers [Paper presentation]. Technology, Mind, & Society, an American Psychological Association Conference, Washington, DC, United States.

Caulfield

(2016, December 19). Yes, digital literacy. But which one? Hapgood. https://hapgood.us/2016/12/19/yes-digital-literacy-but-which-one/

Caulfield

(2018, December 19). Recalibrating our approach to misinformation. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-12-19-recalibrating-our-approach-to-misinformation

Coiro

Coscarelli

Maykel

Forzani

(2015). Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.448

10.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.). English language arts standards. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/

11.

Dautrich

(2018, December 5). The future of the First Amendment: 2018 Survey of high school students and teachers. John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. https://knightfoundation.org/reports/the-future-of-the-first-amendment-2018/

12.

Diamond

(2020). Ill winds: Saving democracy from Russian rage, Chinese ambition, and American complacency. Penguin.

13.

Gasser

Cortesi

Malik

Lee

(2012). Youth and digital media: From credibility to information quality. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2005272

14.

Gigerenzer

Gaissmaier

(2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

15.

Hargittai

Fullerton

Menchen-Trevino

Thomas

K. Y.

(2010). Trust online: Young adults’ evaluation of web content. International Journal of Communication, 4, 468–494.

16.

Hertwig

Engel

(2016). Homo ignorans: Deliberately choosing not to know. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635594

17.

Hobbs

(2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Aspen Institute. https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2010/11/Digital_and_Media_Literacy.pdf

18.

Howard

T. C.

(2019). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. Teachers College Press.

19.

Kahne

Lee

Feezell

J. T.

(2012). Digital media literacy education and online civic and political participation. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1–24.

20.

Kohnen

A. M.

Mertens

G. E.

Boehm

S. M.

(2020). Can middle schoolers learn to read the web like experts? Possibilities and limits of a strategy-based intervention. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(2), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2020-12-2-6

21.

Kozyreva

Lewandowsky

Hertwig

(2020). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 103–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707

22.

Leu

D. J.

Coiro

Kulikowich

J. M.

Cui

(2012, November 28–December 1). Using the psychometric characteristics of multiple-choice, open internet, and closed (simulated) internet formats to refine the development of online research and comprehension assessments in science: Year three of the ORCA project [Paper presentation]. Literacy Research Association 62nd Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, United States.

23.

Levitsky

Ziblatt

(2018). How democracies die. Penguin.

24.

Lurie

Mustafaraj

(2018, May). Investigating the effects of Google’s search engine result page in evaluating the credibility of online news sources. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science (pp. 107–116). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3201064.3201095

25.

Lynch

M. P.

(2017). An internet of us: Knowing more and understanding less in an age of big data. W. W. Norton.

26.

Mandara

Varner

Greene

Richman

(2009). Intergenerational family predictors of the Black–White achievement gap. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016644

27.

McGrew

(2020). Learning to evaluate: An intervention in Civic Online Reasoning. Computers & Education, 145, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103711

28.

McGrew

Breakstone

Ortega

Smith

Wineburg

(2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of Civic Online Reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320

29.

McGrew

Smith

Breakstone

Ortega

Wineburg

(2019). Improving students’ web savvy: An intervention study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12279

30.

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

31.

Mihailidis

Thevenin

(2013). Media literacy as a core competency for engaged citizenship in participatory democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(11), 1611–1622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213489015

32.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-a). Collecting race and ethnicity data from students and staff using the new categories. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/report-your-data/race-ethnicity-collecting-data-for-reporting-purposes

33.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-b). Information on the Common Core of Data (CCD). https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/files.asp

34.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.-c). NAEP is the leader in large-scale assessment. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/leader_assessments.aspx

35.

Pan

Hembrooke

Joachims

Lorigo

Gay

Granka

(2007). In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x

36.

Reardon

S. F.

Robinson-Cimpian

J. P.

Weathers

E. S.

(2015). Patterns and trends in racial/ethnic and socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. In Ladd

H. F.

Goertz

M. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (2nd ed., pp. 491–509). Routledge.

37.

Reardon

S. F.

Townsend

J. B.

(2018). SEG: Stata module to compute multiple-group diversity and segregation indices [Statistical software module]. EconPapers. https://econpapers.repec.org/software/bocbocode/s375001.htm

38.

Rideout

Robb

M. B.

(2019). The Common Sense census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2019. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-teens-2019

39.

Simon

H. A.

(1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In Greenberger

(Ed.), Computers, communications, and the public interest (pp. 38–72). Johns Hopkins Press. https://digitalcollections.library.cmu.edu/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=33748

40.

Sullivan

M. C.

(2019). Why librarians can’t fight fake news. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(4), 1146–1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618764258

41.

Walraven

Brand-Gruwel

Boshuizen

H. P. A.

(2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.003

42.

Warzel

(2021, February 18). Don’t go down the rabbit hole. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/opinion/fake-news-media-attention.html

43.

Wineburg

Breakstone

Ziv

Smith

(2020). Educating for misunderstanding: How approaches to teaching digital literacy make students susceptible to scammers, rogues, bad actors, and hate mongers (Working Paper A-21322). Stanford History Education Group. https://purl.stanford.edu/mf412bt5333

44.

Wineburg

McGrew

(2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information (Working Paper No. 2017-A1). Stanford History Education Group. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3048994

45.

Wineburg

McGrew

(2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record, 121(11), 1–40.

46.

Wineburg

McGrew

Breakstone

Ortega

(2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning (Working Paper No. 2016-A1). Stanford History Education Group. http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934

47.

Wineburg

Ziv

(2019, December 5). The meaninglessness of the .org domain. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/dot-org-domain.html

48.

Wineburg

Ziv

(2020, November 6). Why can’t a generation that grew up online spot the misinformation in front of them? Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-11-06/colleges-students-recognize-misinformation

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.66 MB

Students’ Civic Online Reasoning: A National Portrait

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material