What does more and less effective internet evaluation entail?: Investigating readers’ credibility judgments across content, source, and context

Abstract

In our post-truth era, evaluating the credibility of internet information is important but complex. However, much research on students’ online evaluation is based on relatively simplistic constructions of evaluation, and students struggle to evaluate well. In this mixed methods study, we used a systematic and comprehensive conceptualization of effective online evaluation, known as the critical online resource evaluation (CORE) framework, to investigate students’ performance in, and practices for, online evaluation. To do so, we used seventh grade students’ ( n = 1,434) quantitative scores on the Online Research and Comprehension Assessment (ORCA), as well as a sub-sample ( n = 205 each of better and poorer evaluators defined by their 0-1 score on an evaluation component of ORCA) of their corresponding written responses. Findings suggest that CORE is more challenging than locating and synthesizing. Findings also suggest that, when judging credibility, better evaluators more frequently relied on content (claims, evidence) and source (author, venue), and poorer evaluators on context (setting and document features), evidence. Better evaluators also more frequently used argumentation practices and critical, flexible habits of mind. We discuss theoretical implications for the CORE framework and for how online evaluation can be researched, taught, and assessed with this framework in mind.