Online credibility evaluation skills in upper secondary students: The role of grade level, argument evaluation, and analytic thinking dispositions

Abstract

When learning from online texts, evaluating the credibility of information is fundamental. However, readers' skills vary considerably. Theoretical frameworks suggest that argument evaluation and critical, flexible thinking dispositions are important for accurately evaluating information, but these relationships have not been empirically well-established. We examined online credibility evaluation among upper secondary school students (N = 215). Students first read and evaluated four online texts on learning styles and then had an opportunity to re-evaluate. We examined the roles of grade level and individual differences in both argument evaluation skills as well as in three analytic thinking dispositions: Need for Cognition, Actively Open-Minded Thinking, and Cognitive Reflection. All these factors positively contributed to online credibility evaluation. Grade level and dispositions were positively associated with more elaboration in re-evaluating responses. Results suggest that encouraging students' effortful and flexible thinking could support their online credibility evaluation. One promising practice is to provide opportunities for re-evaluation.