Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Students' credibility criteria for evaluating scientific information: The case of climate change on social media

Kresin, Soraya, Kremer, Kerstin, Büssing, Alexander Georg·2024·Science Education

Abstract

The rise of social media platforms and the subsequent lack of traditional gatekeeping mechanisms contribute to the multiplied spread of scientific misinformation. Particularly in these new media spaces, there is a rising need for science education in fostering a science media literacy that enables students to evaluate the credibility of scientific information. A key determinant of a successful credibility evaluation is the effectiveness of the criteria students apply in this process. However, research suggests that existing credibility criteria are often not integrated into students' actual social media evaluation behavior. This hints to a lack of transferability of the existing criteria. As a consequence, knowledge about how learners evaluate credibility in social media is a first step in closing this gap. In the present study, we report results from six focus groups with 21 10th‐grade students (M = 15 years, 57% female, 38% male, 5% nonbinary) about their usage of different credibility criteria in the case of social media posts about climate change. The data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis and as a first step assigned to established credibility dimensions of content (what?) and source‐related criteria (who?). Additionally, given the complexity of social media, we also added a composition‐based category (how?). In a second analysis step, we adapted our subcategories to the recently proposed credibility heuristic by Osborne and Pimentel. The findings suggest that students generally take criteria from all three heuristic credibility dimensions into account and combine different criteria when evaluating the credibility of scientific information in social media. Based on the application of the credibility criteria to the heuristic, implications for the development of teaching materials for fostering science media literacy are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.21855

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Alexander J. E., 1999, Web wisdom: How to evaluate and create information quality on the web
  2. 10.1525/abt.2012.74.9.13 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1007/s11191-021-00257-4 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036 · DOI
  5. Alvarado O. &Waern A.(2018). Towards algorithmic experience.Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173860 · DOI
  6. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.369 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/978-3-030-14610-8_5 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/0340035221991564 · DOI
  9. 10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w · DOI
  10. Bromme R., 2014, Pädagogische PsychologieKienhues, Dorothe, 55
  11. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01989 · DOI
  12. 10.1080/15456870.2015.972282 · DOI
  13. 10.3102/0013189X20940683 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1177/0963662520981729 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/13546783.2022.2041095 · DOI
  16. Davis M. &Stark A.(2001).Conflict of interest in the professions. · DOI
  17. 10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0182 · DOI
  18. 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1164 · DOI
  19. 10.1371/journal.pone.0231387 · DOI
  20. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Gigerenzer G., 1999, Simple heuristics that make us smart19, 3
  22. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.031 · DOI
  23. 10.1037/tmb0000005 · DOI
  24. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199856169.001.0001 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/0165551511400958 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101104 · DOI
  27. 10.5860/crl.75.4.442 · DOI
  28. 10.1080/00913367.2005.10639191 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100967 · DOI
  30. 10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.3390/cli7100122 · DOI
  32. 10.1023/A:1008642510402 · DOI
  33. 10.1037/h0048344 · DOI
  34. 10.7551/mitpress/11483.001.0001 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1002/asi.20672 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1007/s10763-010-9206-7 · DOI
  38. O'Keefe D. J., 2015, Persuasion: Theory and research
  39. 10.1002/sce.21790 · DOI
  40. 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486871 · DOI
  41. 10.1007/978-3-658-22095-2 · DOI
  42. 10.1007/s11145-016-9638-8 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kresin, S., Kremer, K., & Büssing, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Group of Biology Education, Institute for Science Education Leibniz University Hannover Germany
  • Institute for Biology Education Justus Liebig University Giessen Germany
  • Group of Biology Education, Institute for Science Education Technische Universität Braunschweig Braunschweig Germany
Venue
Science Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-01-19
Volume
108
Issue
3
Pages
762-791
ISSN
  • 0036-8326
  • 1098-237X
Cited by
32
References
9
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review