Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments

Sinatra, Gale M.; Lombardi, Doug

doi:10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181

Cited by 109 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, if motivated (e.g., if they are interested and self-efficient), individuals may also reappraise their original judgements, guided by more explicit processing and increased effort in reasoning. In consequence, Sinatra and Lombardi (2020) suggested that fostering individuals' capabilities to quickly make plausibility judgments about information-by efficiently employing their prior beliefs and knowledge-may be more fruitful in "post-truth" contexts (similar to the contexts we previously described for OESI) than training effortful strategies to evaluate information and its sources.…”

Section: (Prior) Attitudes and Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many urgent problems that societies currently face—from climate change to a global pandemic—require citizens to engage with scientific information as members of democratic societies as well as to solve problems in their personal lives. Most often, to solve their epistemic aims (aims directed at achieving knowledge and understanding) regarding such socio-scientific issues, individuals search for information online, where there exists a multitude of possibly relevant and highly interconnected sources of different perspectives, sometimes providing conflicting information. The paper provides a review of the literature aimed at identifying (a) constraints and affordances that scientific knowledge and the online information environment entail and (b) individuals' cognitive and motivational processes that have been found to hinder, or conversely, support practices of engagement (such as critical information evaluation or two-sided dialogue). Doing this, a conceptual framework for understanding and fostering what we call online engagement with scientific information is introduced, which is conceived as consisting of individual engagement (engaging on one's own in the search, selection, evaluation, and integration of information) and dialogic engagement (engaging in discourse with others to interpret, articulate and critically examine scientific information). In turn, this paper identifies individual and contextual conditions for individuals' goal-directed and effortful online engagement with scientific information.

show abstract

Section: (Prior) Attitudes and Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is important to develop critical thinking and decision-making skills on controversial issues. Sinatra and Lombardi (2020) suggested the need to enable students to evaluate the link between information sources and claims, for instance, scientific explanations about complex phenomena. They also argued that explicitly reappraising plausibility judgments may be a critical point in evaluating the relationships between sources of information and knowledge claims.…”

Section: Scientific Arguments About Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, evaluating claims and sources of information has become more difficult in the post-truth era. Therefore, the post-truth era necessitates a critical evaluation of online information about scientific information (Sinatra and Lombardi 2020). From this perspective, scientific literacy requires not only the critical evaluation of claims, evidence, and sources of information but also the ability to resolve uncertainty in science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-Service Teachers’ Analysis of Claims About COVID-19 in an Online Course

Sarıbaş

Çetinkaya

2020

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Along with the COVID-19 outbreak, which has been a global threat for public health, the unconfirmed information about the pandemic in circulation has become another threat. Hence, it has become important to improve public understanding of science with a focus on explaining the nature of uncertainty in science and its impacts. The goal of the present study was to explore pre-service teachers' analysis of claims related to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout an 8-week online implementation of a pre-service teachers' analysis task, focus group interviews, and instructor's feedback to this analysis in a course focusing on critical and analytical thinking. In order to achieve this purpose, the researchers used the claims that contain fallacies, conspiracy theories, and scientific arguments related to the COVID-19 pandemic as an assessment tool. The researchers developed and used a rubric consisting of the high, moderate, and low levels of analysis in three different categories including evaluation of claims, demarcation of fallacies and conspiracy theories from scientific arguments, and judgment of the credibility of sources. The findings indicate that the participants analyzed the claims rarely at a high level before the focus group interviews. However, after the focus group interviews, almost every participant's analysis scores of evaluation, demarcation, and judgment increased. The results also revealed their commitment to various fallacies and conspiracy theories while arguing the claims. Concluding remarks are made for the further implications of teaching critical evaluation of claims based on evidence.

show abstract

“…Further, online information sources cover the spectrum in terms of their forms (e.g., websites, blogs, news articles, research articles) and their credibility (Bråten, Strømsø, & Salmerón, 2011; Coiro, 2020; Coiro, Coscarelli, Maykel, & Forzani, 2015). There is also a surprising amount of online content that is either unintentionally misleading or purposefully deceptive, which can make the information search process a precarious undertaking (Sinatra & Lombardi, 2020).…”

Section: Reading Challenges In the Digital Agementioning

confidence: 99%

What Research Has Revealed About Readers’ Struggles With Comprehension in the Digital Age: Moving Beyond the Phonics Versus Whole Language Debate

Alexander

2020

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to look anew at the concepts of reading, reading development, and reading research as they exist beyond the boundaries of the “science of reading” controversy. The context for this reconceptualization is reading in the digital age and the challenges that today’s readers confront daily. Those challenges include information saturation, the proliferation of misleading and malicious online content, the struggle to use valid evidence to support claims, and the tendency to treat complex issues in an overly simplistic fashion. How these concerns pertain to the ongoing “science of reading” debate is also considered. The author concludes with an overview of three recommendations for addressing the challenges faced by readers in this digital age. If they are to be realized, these recommendations require the consolidated effort of reading researchers, reading educators, school leaders, parents, policymakers, and students themselves.

show abstract

Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments

Cited by 109 publications

References 59 publications

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information—A Literature Review

Pre-Service Teachers’ Analysis of Claims About COVID-19 in an Online Course

What Research Has Revealed About Readers’ Struggles With Comprehension in the Digital Age: Moving Beyond the Phonics Versus Whole Language Debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About