2019
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.241
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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 Two documents had source‐related issues (i.e., noncompetent author, outdated), and the other two documents had content‐related issues (i.e., topic mismatch, poor readability).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 no… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
49
1
10

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
1
49
1
10
Order By: Relevance
“…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.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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).…”
Section: What Is Good Epistemic Performance?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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 .…”
Section: Challenges In the Online Information Ecosystemmentioning
confidence: 99%