Exploring early adolescents’ evaluation of academic and commercial online resources related to health
- 641 Downloads
This study assessed the ability of 426 students (ages 12–13) to critically evaluate two types of online locations on health issues: an academic resource and a commercial resource. The results indicated limited evaluation abilities, especially for the commercial resource, and only a small, partial association with prior stance and offline reading ability. Only about half (51.4%) of the students questioned the credibility of the commercial online resource and only about 19% of the students showed an ability to fully recognize commercial bias. Wide variation existed in students’ ability to evaluate online information, as approximately one-fourth of the students performed poorly when evaluating the overall credibility of both online resources and one-fourth performed well. Logistic regression models showed that offline reading skills accounted for only 8.8% of the variance for the academic online resource and 15.1% of that for the commercial resource. No association appeared between evaluation and background knowledge, although an association with prior stance was observed for each online resource. The results are discussed in light of previous research and the need to pay greater attention to the critical evaluation of online resources during classroom instruction.
KeywordsEvaluation Online reading Digital literacy Adolescents Critical reading
This work was supported by the Academy of Finland (No. 274022). We are also grateful to Sini Hjelm, Sonja Tiri and Paula Rahkonen for their valuable work with the data collection and data management.
- Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2010). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 201–225). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Andreassen, R., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Reading about health risks: Who and what to trust? A research review. In K. P. Knutsen, S. Kvam, P. H. Langemeyer, K. Solfjeld, & A. Parianou (Eds.), Narratives of risk: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 255–274). Münster: Waxman.Google Scholar
- Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Brassart, D. G. (1996). Does a prototypical argumentative schema exist? Text recall in 8 to 13 years olds. Argumentation, 10, 163–174.Google Scholar
- Bråten, I., McCrudden, M. T., Lund, E. S., Brante, E. W., & Stømsø, H. I. (2017). Task-oriented learning with multiple documents: Effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on document selection, processing, and use. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.197.Google Scholar
- Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Byron, T. (2008). Safer children in a digital world: The report of the Byron Review: Be safe, be aware, have fun. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7332/7/Final%20Report%20Bookmarked_Redacted.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2017.
- Eastin, M. S. (2008). Toward a cognitive development approach to youth perceptions of credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 29–48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fabos, B. (2008). The price of information: Critical literacy, education, and today’s Internet. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 839–870). New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2002). How do people evaluate a Web site’s credibility: Results from a large study. Retrieved from http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-evaluate-abstract.cfm. Accessed 20 Feb 2018.
- Gasser, U., Cortesi, S., Malik, M., & Lee, A. (2012). Youth and digital media: From credibility to information quality (February 16, 2012). Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2012-1. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2005272. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.
- Hartman, D., Hagerman, M. S., & Leu, D. J. (in press). Towards a new literacies perspective of synthesis: Multiple source meaning construction. To appear in J. Braasch and I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of research on multiple source use. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
- Howe, P., & Teufel, B. (2014). Native advertising and digital natives: The effects of age and advertisement format on news website credibility judgments. The Journal of the International Symposium on Online Journalism, 4, 78–90.Google Scholar
- Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lindeman, J. (1998). Ala-asteen lukutesti ALLU [Reading test for primary school ALLU]. Turku: Oppimistutkimuksen keskus.Google Scholar
- Nevala, J., & Lyytinen, H. (2000). Sanaketjutesti [Word chain test]. Jyväskylä: Niilo Mäki Instituutti.Google Scholar
- Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 351–385). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Stanford History Education Group. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic responsibility. An executive summary. Retrieved from https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2017.