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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“I followed a process similar to McGrew et al. (2018) to design and iterate on each assessment and associated rubric, with feedback from Mr. Lewis and another researcher.”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as McGrew et al. (2018)
In the citing paper
“Researchers have demonstrated that the COR framework supports high school students with effectively evaluating information on websites and social media posts by providing them with stronger heuristics and strategies for making decisions about what information to pay attention to online (Breakstone et al., 2021;McGrew et al., 2018;McGrew, 2020;Wineburg et al., 2022).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as McGrew et al., 2018
Citations
Cites
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1
Prensky, M. (2001) · On the Horizon · doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 · Cited by 11,104
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants
(2012) · Corwin Press eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483387765.n6 · Cited by 7,116
(1994) · Cited by 3,556
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
The international encyclopedia of education
Watson, K. (1994) · International Journal of Educational Development · doi:10.1016/0738-0593(94)90060-4 · Cited by 1,487
Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x · Cited by 1,394
The filter bubble: how the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-0926 · Cited by 1,319
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139032490 · Cited by 1,281
Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility
Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2007) · Cited by 1,036
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Gottfried J., 2016, The 2016 presidential campaign—A news event that’s hard to miss
- Hargittai E., 2010, International Journal of Communication, 4, 468
- 10.1007/s11251008-9080-7 · DOI
- Kahne J., 2012, International Journal of Communication, 6, 1
- National Council for the Social Studies, 2016, Social Education, 80, 183
- Schmeiser C. B., 2006, Educational measurement
- 10.1037//0022-0663.92.3.413 · DOI
- Wineburg S., 2012, Social Education, 76, 290
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review
Aïmeur, E., Amri, S., & Brassard, G. (2023) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5 · Cited by 772
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Zafar, N., & Alrasheedy, M. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.026 · Cited by 612
Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100620946707 · Cited by 479
Brashier, N. M., & Schacter, D. L. (2020) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721420915872 · Cited by 480
Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811912101102 · Cited by 394
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McGrew, Sarah
- 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
- 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
