Abstract
In this study, we investigated the impact of prompting on young students’ source consideration when watching videos with conflicting information. 262 French 7th graders were shown a series of videos in which two speakers (varying in credibility) took opposite stances on the topic of organic farming. The students were either given no prompts (control group), an indirect form of prompting (watching an instructional video on the benefits of sourcing before processing the material), a direct form of prompting (filling out source credibility rating scales during the processing of the material) or a combination of direct and indirect prompting. While the impact of the instructional video on students’ source consideration proved marginal, students who had to fill in the source credibility rating scales during the processing of the material remembered the identity of the speakers better (notably in delayed posttest), were more inclined to consider the expert interviewee as more convincing and to mention interviewees’ expertise to justify their judgement. These results suggest that prompting seventh graders to evaluate the credibility of the sources during the processing of the material through the completion of credibility rating scales is an efficient method to improve their consideration of source information when watching videos.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., Florit, E., & Mason, L. (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
Booth-Butterfield, S., & Gutowski, C. (1993). Message modality and source credibility can interact to affect argument processing. Communication Quarterly, 41(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369869
Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219
Braasch, J. L., Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Manning, F. H., Gomez, K. W., & MacLeod, S. M. (2009). Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students’ use of source attributes to select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.1.c
Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40(3), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6
Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7
Breitwieser, J., Neubauer, A. B., Schmiedek, F., & Brod, G. (2022). Self-regulation prompts promote the achievement of learning goals–but only briefly: Uncovering hidden dynamics in the effects of a psychological intervention. Learning and Instruction, 80, 101560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101560
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.241
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
DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.541
De Pereyra, G. (2016). Lecture et compréhension de textes contradictoires par les adolescents: Représentation et prise en compte des sources d’information [Adolescents' reading and comprehension of conflicting texts: Representation and consideration of information sources] [PhD Thesis]. University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
De Pereyra, G., Belkadi, S., Marbach, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Do teenage readers’ use source information when faced with discrepant information? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse.
Eastin, M. S., Yang, M. S., & Nathanson, A. I. (2006). Children of the net: An empirical exploration into the evaluation of Internet content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_3
Fabriz, S., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Poarch, G., & Büttner, G. (2014). Fostering self-monitoring of university students by means of a standardized learning journal—a longitudinal study with process analyses. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0196-z
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2020). car: Companion to applied regression. [R package]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=car.
Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th ed.). Wadsworth.
Holland, B. S., & Copenhaver, M. D. (1988). Improved Bonferroni-type multiple testing procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.145
IPSOS. (2017). Junior Connect’ 2017 : les jeunes ont toujours une vie derrière les écrans ! IPSOS.Com. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/junior-connect-2017-les-jeunes-ont-toujours-une-vie-derriere-les-ecrans
Kammerer, Y., Meier, N., & Stahl, E. (2016). Fostering secondary-school students’ intertext model formation when reading a set of websites: The effectiveness of source prompts. Computers & Education, 102, 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.001
Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra Psychology, 8(1), 33267. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., & Schudson, M. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
Lenth, R. (2020). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. [R package]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans.
Lescarret, C., Magnier, J., Le Floch, V., Sakdavong, J.-C., Boucheix, J.-M., & Amadieu, F. (2023). “Because I agree with him”: The impact of middle-school students’ prior attitude on the evaluation of source credibility when watching videos. European Journal of Psychology of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00678-5
Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J. L., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769995
Macedo-Rouet, M., Potocki, A., Scharrer, L., Ros, C., Stadtler, M., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2019). How good is this page? Benefits and limits of prompting on adolescents’ evaluation of web information quality. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.241
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
Merkt, M., & Schwan, S. (2014). How does interactivity in videos affect task performance? Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.018
Merkt, M., Weigand, S., Heier, A., & Schwan, S. (2011). Learning with videos vs. learning with print: The role of interactive features. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.03.004
Paul, J., Cerdán, R., Rouet, J. F., & Stadtler, M. (2018). Exploring fourth graders’ sourcing skills/Un análisis de la capacidad de escrutinio sobre las fuentes de información de los estudiantes de cuarto grado. Journal for the Study of Education & Development, 41(3), 536–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1480458
Paul, J., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., & 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
Paul, J., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2019). Effects of a sourcing prompt and conflicts in reading materials on elementary students’ use of source information. Discourse Processes, 56(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1402165
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
Perloff, R. M. (2017). The dynamics of persuasion: communication and attitudes in the twenty-first century. Routledge.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
Potocki, A., de Pereyra, G., Ros, C., Macedo-Rouet, M., Stadtler, M., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J. F. (2020). The development of source evaluation skills during adolescence: Exploring different levels of source processing and their relationships (El desarrollo de las habilidades de evaluación de las fuentes durante la adolescencia: una exploración de los distintos niveles de procesamiento de las fuentes y sus relaciones). Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 43(1), 19–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2019.1690848
Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
Salmerón, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., & Rouet, J. 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(10), 2404–2419. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23585
Salmerón, L., Sampietro, A., & Delgado, P. (2020). Using Internet videos to learn about controversies: Evaluation and integration of multiple and multimodal documents by primary school students. Computers & Education, 148, 103796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103796
Schiefer, J., Edelsbrunner, P. A., Bernholt, A., Kampa, N., & Nehring, A. (2022). Epistemic beliefs in science—a systematic integration of evidence from multiple studies. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09661-w
Schroeder, J., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2017). The humanizing voice: Speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychological Science, 28, 1745–1762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617713798
Singmann, H. (2018). afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. [R package]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=afex.
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met a ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 716–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023
Stadtler, M., Paul, J., Globoschütz, S., & Bromme, R. (2015). Watch out! An instruction raising students’ epistemic vigilance augments their sourcing activities. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2278–2283). Cognitive Science Society.
Stiff, J. B., & Mongeau, P. A. (2016). Persuasive communication. Guilford.
Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Multiple models of multiple-text comprehension: A commentary. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1320557
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 176–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
The jamovi project. (2021). jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.
Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894421
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Elizabeth Rowley-Jolivet for her proofreading of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was conducted as part of the research project “DIMEDD” which was funded by the French Ministry of Education, Higher Education and Research through the PIA (Future Investment Program) call for projects.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lescarret, C., Magnier, J., Le Floch, V. et al. Do you trust this speaker? The impact of prompting on middle-school students’ consideration of source when watching conflicting videos. Instr Sci 52, 41–69 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09637-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09637-5