CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 596Educator Training and Historical PedagogyEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesLiteracy, Media, and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can Students Evaluate Online Sources? Learning From Assessments of Civic Online Reasoning

McGrew, Sarah, Breakstone, Joel, Ortega, Teresa, Smith, Mark, Wineburg, Sam·2018·Theory & Research in Social Education
DOI 10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To be an informed citizen in today’s information-rich environment, individuals must be able to evaluate information they encounter on the Internet. However, teachers currently have limited options if they want to assess students’ evaluations of digital content. In response, we created a range of short tasks that assess students’ civic online reasoning—the ability to effectively search for, evaluate, and verify social and political information online. Assessments ranged from paper-and-pencil tasks to open Internet search tasks delivered via Google Forms. We outline a process of assessment development in which middle school, high school, and college students in 12 states completed tasks. We present a series of representative tasks and analyses of trends in student performance. Across tasks and grade levels, students struggled to effectively evaluate online claims, sources, and evidence. These results point to a need for curriculum materials that support students’ development of civic online reasoning competencies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Gottfried J., 2016, The 2016 presidential campaign—A news event that’s hard to miss
  2. Hargittai E., 2010, International Journal of Communication, 4, 468
  3. 10.1007/s11251008-9080-7 · DOI
  4. Kahne J., 2012, International Journal of Communication, 6, 1
  5. National Council for the Social Studies, 2016, Social Education, 80, 183
  6. Schmeiser C. B., 2006, Educational measurement
  7. 10.1037//0022-0663.92.3.413 · DOI
  8. Wineburg S., 2012, Social Education, 76, 290

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 596

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
McGrew, Sarah
ORCID
Venue
Theory & Research in Social Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-01-08
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
165-193
ISSN
  • 0093-3104 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-1654
DOI
10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320
OpenAlex
W2782804901
Cited by
533
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 17
FWCI
102.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Theory & Research in Social Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert R. McCormick Foundation
  • Spencer Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educator Training and Historical Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy, Media, and Education
Keywords
evaluating online sources, information literacy, digital citizenship, citizenship education, assessment development, online information evaluation, political information, social information, student achievement trends, grade level differences, curriculum materials

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