How Good Is This Page? Benefits and Limits of Prompting on Adolescents’ Evaluation of Web Information Quality

Abstract

The authors examined adolescents’ detection of features that affect the quality of web information. In experiment 1, participants (12–16 years old) rated the goodness/usefulness of four web‐like documents for a simulated study assignment. Each document came with an issue that potentially undermined its quality. Two documents had source‐related issues (i.e., noncompetent author, outdated), and the other two documents had content‐related issues (i.e., topic mismatch, poor readability). Most students failed to notice the issues, including topic mismatch. The participants also produced inconsistent evaluations of topic match, readability, author competence, and currency. In experiment 2, students were prompted to assess each criterion separately. The participants distinguished poorer from better documents in relation to each criterion, except for author competence. The authors discuss these results in light of previous research on adolescents’ evaluation behavior, propose further avenues for reading research, and articulate recommendations for educational practice.

The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure

“…Its application procedure was adapted to a group application, and participants wrote down their responses (cf. Macedo-Rouet et al, 2019 ). Two experiment administrators ensured that participants did not annotate any digit/letter while the series were being read aloud.…”

Education for a “Post-Truth” World: New Directions for Research and Practice

“…This may stem from a breakdown in cognitive engagement with epistemic ideals and processes. For example, students can find it difficult to identify competent experts (Macedo-Rouet et al, 2019).…”

Can middle schoolers learn to read the web like experts? Possibilities and limits of a strategy-based intervention

“…presence of an author's name, credentials); message cues (e.g., date, links to other sources); along with qualities of the individual user (e.g., age, prior knowledge, motivation) (Metzger & Flanagin, 2015). In some studies, these cues and qualities appear to be mobilized at random by individuals as they attempt to assess the credibility of information, with few people using a systematic approach Macedo-Rouet, et al, 2019;Walraven et al, 2008;Wineburg & McGrew, 2019). Social psychology research has established that this finding appears to be especially true when users are not motivated to investigate credibility deeply .…”