Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research in Science Teaching Pub Date : 2024-07-27 DOI:10.1002/tea.21974
Daniel R. Pimentel
{"title":"Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning","authors":"Daniel R. Pimentel","doi":"10.1002/tea.21974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Students frequently turn to the internet for information about a range of scientific issues. However, they can find it challenging to evaluate the credibility of the information they find, which may increase their susceptibility to mis‐ and disinformation. This exploratory study reports findings from an instructional intervention designed to teach high school students to engage in <jats:italic>scientific online reasoning</jats:italic> (SOR), a set of competencies for evaluating sources of scientific information on the internet. Forty‐three ninth grade students participated in eleven instructional activities. They completed pre and post constructed response tasks designed to assess three constructs: evaluating conflicts of interest, relevant scientific expertise, and alignment with scientific consensus. A subset of students (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 6) also completed pre and post think‐aloud tasks where they evaluated websites of varying credibility. Students' written responses and screen‐capture recordings were scored, coded, and analyzed using a mixed‐methods approach. Findings from the study demonstrate that after the intervention: (1) students' assessment scores improved significantly on all three tasks, (2) students improved in their ability to distinguish between sources of online scientific information of varying credibility, and (3) more students used online reasoning strategies and outside sources of information. Areas for student growth are also identified, such as improving coordinated use of credibility criteria with online reasoning strategies. These results suggest that teaching criteria for the credibility of scientific information, along with online reasoning strategies, has the potential to help students evaluate scientific information encountered on the internet.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21974","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Students frequently turn to the internet for information about a range of scientific issues. However, they can find it challenging to evaluate the credibility of the information they find, which may increase their susceptibility to mis‐ and disinformation. This exploratory study reports findings from an instructional intervention designed to teach high school students to engage in scientific online reasoning (SOR), a set of competencies for evaluating sources of scientific information on the internet. Forty‐three ninth grade students participated in eleven instructional activities. They completed pre and post constructed response tasks designed to assess three constructs: evaluating conflicts of interest, relevant scientific expertise, and alignment with scientific consensus. A subset of students (n = 6) also completed pre and post think‐aloud tasks where they evaluated websites of varying credibility. Students' written responses and screen‐capture recordings were scored, coded, and analyzed using a mixed‐methods approach. Findings from the study demonstrate that after the intervention: (1) students' assessment scores improved significantly on all three tasks, (2) students improved in their ability to distinguish between sources of online scientific information of varying credibility, and (3) more students used online reasoning strategies and outside sources of information. Areas for student growth are also identified, such as improving coordinated use of credibility criteria with online reasoning strategies. These results suggest that teaching criteria for the credibility of scientific information, along with online reasoning strategies, has the potential to help students evaluate scientific information encountered on the internet.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学会评估互联网上的科学(错误)信息来源:评估学生的网上科学推理能力
学生经常从互联网上获取有关一系列科学问题的信息。然而,他们可能会发现,评估所发现信息的可信度具有挑战性,这可能会增加他们对错误信息和虚假信息的易感性。这项探索性研究报告了一项教学干预的结果,该干预旨在教导高中学生进行科学在线推理(SOR),这是一套评估互联网上科学信息来源的能力。43 名九年级学生参加了 11 项教学活动。他们完成了旨在评估以下三个方面的前后建构式反应任务:评估利益冲突、相关科学专业知识以及与科学共识的一致性。一部分学生(n = 6)还完成了前后思考-朗读任务,对不同可信度的网站进行评估。采用混合方法对学生的书面回答和屏幕捕捉记录进行评分、编码和分析。研究结果表明,干预后:(1) 学生在所有三项任务中的评估分数都有显著提高;(2) 学生区分不同可信度的在线科学信息来源的能力有所提高;(3) 更多的学生使用了在线推理策略和外部信息来源。此外,还发现了学生有待提高的方面,如改进可信度标准与在线推理策略的协调使用。这些结果表明,教授科学信息可信度标准和在线推理策略有可能帮助学生评估在互联网上遇到的科学信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Research in Science Teaching EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
19.60%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information “Powered by emotions”: Exploring emotion induction in out‐of‐school authentic science learning Issue Information Developing and evaluating the extended epistemic vigilance framework The IPM cycle: An instructional tool for promoting students' engagement in modeling practices and construction of models
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1