Scaffolding source evaluation during document-based scientific inquiry: The contributions of document mapping and shared criteria scaffolds

Abstract

In times of widespread misinformation, students must learn to evaluate source trustworthiness so that they can determine the reliability of scientific information. The aim of our study was to advance the understanding of how epistemic scaffolds contribute to the development of students' source evaluation as they engage in scientific inquiry learning. In a quasi-experimental study with 137 9th-grade students, we examined the additive contribution of two types of epistemic scaffolds: (1) a document mapping scaffold designed to support cognitive engagement with sourcing processes and criteria by prompting learners to evaluate sources and to link sources and contents; and (2) a shared criteria scaffold designed to foster metacognitive understanding of source evaluation criteria by engaging learners in developing and discussing class criteria lists. Learning with the document mapping scaffold increased the use of source trustworthiness criteria to evaluate documents as well as critical source evaluations in argumentative essays. Adding the shared criteria scaffold led to a greater increase in the uses of sourcing criteria and critical source evaluation in the essays. The shared criteria scaffold also decreased selections of documents with unreliable sources and increased metacognitive understanding of sourcing criteria. The scaffolds did not impact source citations and selections of documents with reliable sources. These results demonstrate that learning with a document mapping scaffold, which encourages students to evaluate sources and to track who said what, can improve critical source evaluation to some extent. Yet, engaging students in developing and discussing shared criteria can enhance metacognitive growth and thus support greater improvement in critical source evaluation.