Adolescents’ credibility justifcations when evaluating online texts

Abstract

Research has shown that students difer in their abilities to evaluate the credibility of online texts, and, in general, many perform poorly on online evaluation tasks. This study extended current knowledge by examining students’ abilities to justify the credibility of online texts from diferent perspectives, thus providing a more nuanced understanding of students’ credibility evaluation ability. We examined how upper secondary school students (N=73; aged 16 to 17) evaluated author expertise, author intention, the publication venue, and the quality of evidence when reading four texts about the efects of sugar consumption in a web-based environment. Additionally, we examined how students’ prior topic knowledge, Internet-specifc justifcation beliefs, and time on task were associated with their credibility justifcations. Students evaluated author expertise, author intention, the venue, and the quality of evidence for each text on a six-point scale and provided written justifcations for their evaluations. While students’ credibility evaluations were quite accurate, their credibility justifcations lacked sophistication. Inter-individual diferences were considerable, however. Regression analysis revealed that time on task was a statistically signifcant unique predictor of students’ credibility justifcations. Instructional implications are discussed.