CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesLibrary Science and Information LiteracyEducation and Critical Thinking Development

Investigation of students' use of online information in higher education using eye tracking

Open access
Kunz, Ann-Kathrin, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Olga, Schmidt, Susanne, Nagel, Marie-Theres, Brückner, Sebastian·2024·Smart Learning Environments
DOI 10.1186/s40561-024-00333-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To successfully learn using freely available (and non-curated) Internet resources, university students need to search for, critically evaluate and select online information, and verify sources (defined as Critical Online Reasoning, COR). Recent research indicates substantial deficits in COR skills among higher education students. To support students in learning how to critically use online information for their learning, it is necessary to better understand the strategies and practices that might elicit less critically-reflective judgments about online information and thus account for such deficits. To this end, using eye tracking data, we investigate how the COR behaviors of students who critically-reflectively evaluate the credibility of online information (‘high performers’) differ from those of students who do not critically-reflectively evaluate it (‘low performers’): 19 students were divided into high and low performers according to their performance in the newly developed Critical Online Reasoning Assessment (CORA). The fixation and dwell times of both groups during CORA task processing were compared regarding time spent on the different processing steps and eye movements on the visited web pages. The results show noticeable differences between the two groups, indicating that low performers indeed approached the task rather heuristically than systematically, and that COR skills require targeted and effective training in higher education.

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 · 10.1186/s40561-024-00333-6

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Students must actively develop competencies to evaluate, verify, and ethically use information in academically responsible ways.

    “Empirical research consistently shows that digital abundance does not automatically translate into informed judgment; rather, students must actively develop competencies to evaluate, verify, and ethically use information in academically responsible ways (Aladsani, 2025; Kunz et al., 2024; Molerov et al., 2020; Surducan and Valadas, 2025).”

    From Information competence and critical thinking in digital environments evidence from university students in Kazakhstan (2026) · cites this paper as Kunz et al., 2024

    The Research background and study objective section says abundant online information is not necessarily reliable and that students need to evaluate its credibility and verify it against other sources. It also calls for support in learning to use online information critically. The passages do not address ethical use or academic responsibility, so those parts of the claim are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teaclier, 61(5), 364-373.
  2. Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 125, 413-428.
  3. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic Thinking in Action: Evaluating and Integrating Online Sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39-85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07370 008. 2011. 636495 · DOI
  4. Bera, P., Soffer, P., & Parsons, J. (2019). Using eye tracking to expose cognitive processes in understanding conceptual models. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems., 43(4), 1105-1126. https:// doi. org/ 10. 25300/ MISQ/ 2019/ 14163 · DOI
  5. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers and Education, 53(4), 1207-1217. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2009. 06. 004 · DOI
  6. Brand-Gruwel, S., Kammerer, Y., van Meeuwen, L. & van Gog, T. (2017). Source evaluation of domain experts and novices during Web search. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 234-251
  7. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111-130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11409-011-9075-7 · DOI
  8. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from mul- tiple texts. In S. Goldman, A. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209-233).
  9. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and Learning Processes (pp. 276-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Cho, B.-Y., Afflerbach, P., & Han, H. (2018). Strategie Processing in Accessing, Comprehending, and Using Multiple Sources Online. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of Multiple Source Use (pp. 133-150). Routledge.
  11. Chuang, H. H., & Liu, H. C. (2012). Effects of different multimedia presentations on viewers' information-processing activi- ties measured by eye tracking technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 276-286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10956-011-9316-1 · DOI
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
  13. Coskun, A., & Cagiltay, K. (2021). A systematic review of eye-tracking-based research on animated multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38, 581-598.
  14. Cyr, D., & Head, M. (2013). The impact of task framing and viewing timing on user website perceptions and viewing behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(12), 1089-1102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhcs. 2013. 08. 009 · DOI
  15. Djamasbi, S. (2014). Eye Tracking and Web Experience 2. Visual System: How Do We See? AIS Transactions on Human-Com- puter Interactionransactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(2), 16-31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17705/ 1thci. 00060 · DOI
  16. Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice. Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-1-84628-609-4 · DOI
  17. Elsweiler, D., & Kattenbeck, M. (2019). Understanding credibility judgements for web search snippets. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(3), 368-391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ AJIM-07-2018-0181 · DOI
  18. Erdogan, R., Saglam, Z., Cetintav, G., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2023). Examination of the usability of Tinkercad application in educational robotics teaching by eye tracking technique. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 27.
  19. Evans, J. S. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378-395.
  20. Evans, J. S., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91612 460685 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 324, 573-577. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. 324. 7337. 573 · DOI
  22. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media and Society, 9(2), 319-342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14614 44807 075015 · DOI
  23. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Credibility and the world wide web. Persuasive Technology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ b978-15586 0643-2/ 50009-3 · DOI
  24. Gadiraju, U., Yu, R., Dietze, S. Holtz, P. (2018). Analyzing knowledge gain of users in informational search sessions on the web. CHIIR 2018 Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 31763 49. 31763 81 · DOI
  25. Gerjets, P., Kammerer, Y., & Werner, B. (2011). Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during Web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye tracking data. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 220-231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. learn instr uc. 2010. 02. 005 · DOI
  26. Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (2003). Nonparametric statistical inference (4th ed.). Marcel Dekker.
  27. Gidlöf, K., Wallin, A., Dewhurst, R., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). Using eye tracking to trace a cognitive process: Gaze behaviour during decision making in a natural environment. Journal of Eye Movement Research., 6(1), 1-14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 16910/ jemr.6. 1.3 · DOI
  28. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.
  29. Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A.-K. (2011). An eye tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 71-98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bdm. 684 · DOI
  30. Goldberg, J., & Wichansky, A. (2003). Eye tracking in usability evaluation: A practitioner's guide. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The Mind' s Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research (pp. 493-516). Elsevier.
  31. Granka, L., Joachims, T. Gay, G. (2004). Eye tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. Proceedings of Sheffield SIGIR -Twenty-Seventh Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 478-479. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 10089 92. 10090 79 · DOI
  32. Granka, L., Pellacini, F., & Pan, B. (2008). Eye Tracking and Online Search: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(7), 1041-1052. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ asi. 20794 · DOI
  33. Gronchi, G., & Giovannelli, F. (2018). Dual process theory of thought and default mode network: A possible neural founda- tion of fast thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2018. 01237 · DOI
  34. Han, J., Chen, L., Fu, Z., Fritchman, J., & Bao, L. (2017). Eye-tracking of visual attention in web-based assessment using the force concept inventory. European Journal of Physics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 1361-6404/ aa6c49 · DOI
  35. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye Tracking -A Comprehen- sive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford University Press.
  36. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., & Mulvey, F. (2012). Eye tracker data quality: What it is and how to measure it. Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium (ETRA), 1(212), 45-52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 21685 56. 21685 · DOI
  37. Horstmann, N., Ahlgrimm, A., & Glöckner, A. (2009). How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(5), 335-354. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 13937 29 · DOI
  38. Iding, M. K., Crosby, M. E., Auernheimer, B., & Klemm, E. B. (2009). Web site credibility: Why do people believe what they believe? Instructional Science, 37(1), 43-63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11251-008-9080-7 · DOI
  39. Klein, P., Küchemann, S., Brückner, S., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Kuhn, J. (2019). Student understanding of graph slope and area under a curve: a replication study comparing first-year physics and economics students. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 1-17
  40. Jahng, M. R., & Littau, J. (2016). Interacting is believing: Interactivity, social cue, and perceptions of journalistic credibility on Twitter. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 38-58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10776 99015 606680 · DOI
  41. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2016). Some like it lots: The influence of interactivity and reliance on credibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 136-145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2016. 03. 012 · DOI
  42. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye Fixations and Cognitive. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441-480.
  43. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Psychological Review. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ mind/ xxv.3. 415-b · DOI
  44. Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning Civic Education for the Digital Age: Participatory Politics and the Pursuit of Democratic Engagement. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(1), 1-35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00933 104. 2015. 11326 46 · DOI
  45. Kahneman, Watson K. D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow New York NY: Farrar Straus and Giroux. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation., 26(2), 111-3.
  46. Keller, J., Gorges, M., Horn, H. T., Aho-Özhan, H. E. A., Pinkhardt, E. H., Uttner, I., Kassubek, J., Ludolph, A. C., & Lulé, D. (2015). Eye tracking controlled cognitive function tests in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A controlled proof- of-principle study. Journal of Neurology, 262(8), 1918-1926. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00415-015-7795-3 · DOI
  47. Klein, P., Lichtenberger, A., Küchemann, S., Becker, S., Kekule, M., Viiri, J., Baadte, C., Vaterlaus, A., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Visual attention while solving the test of understanding graphs in kinematics: An eye-tracking analysis. European Journal of Physics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 1361-6404/ ab5f51 · DOI
  48. Lee, W.-K., & Wu, C.-J. (2017). Eye movements in integrating geometric text and figure: Scanpaths and given-new effects. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 1-16.
  49. List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2018). Corroborating students' self-reports of source evaluation. Behaviour & Information Tech- nology, 37(3), 198-216. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01449 29X. 2018. 14308 · DOI
  50. Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., Peteranetz, M. S., & Flanigan, A. E. (2017). Using Eye-Tracking Technology to Understand how Graphic Organizers Aid Student Learning. In C. Was, F. Sansosti, & B. Morris (Eds.), Eye-tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 220-238). GI Global.
  51. Maurer, M., Schemer, C., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Jitomirski, J. (2020). Positive and Negative Media Effects on University Students' Learning: Preliminary Findings and a Research Program. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Ed.). Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of Information (PLATO) (pp. 109-119). Springer.
  52. McGrew, S., Smith, M., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., & Wineburg, S. (2019). Improving university students' web savvy: An inter- vention study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2019, 1-16.
  53. Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making Sense of Credibility on the Web: Models for Evaluating Online Information and Recommen- dations for Future Research Miriam. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078-2091. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ asi. 20672 well · DOI
  54. Metzger, M. J. & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210-220. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. pragma. 2013. 07. 012 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2015). Psychological Approaches to Credibility Assessment Online. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. New Jersey: John Wiley Sons.
  56. Molerov, D., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Nagel, M. T., Brückner, S., Schmidt, S., & Shavelson, R. (2020). Assessing University Students' Critical Online Reasoning Ability: A Conceptual and Assessment Framework with Preliminary Evidence. Frontiers in Education, 5(1), 1-29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ feduc. 2020. 577843 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Nagel, M.-T., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Fischer, J. (2022). Validation of newly developed tasks for the assessment of generic Critical Online Reasoning (COR) of university students and graduates. Frontiers in Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ feduc. 2022. 914857 · DOI
  58. Neuert CE, Lenzner T. 2019 Use of eye tracking in cognitive pretests. Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15465/ gesis-sg_ en_ 025 · DOI
  59. Orquin, J. L., & Mueller Loose, S. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 190-206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. actpsy. 2013. 06. 003 · DOI
  60. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- ates Publishers.
  61. Pifarré, M., Jarodzka, H. M., Brand Gruwel, S., & Argelagós, E. (2018). Unpacking cognitive skills engaged in web-search: How can log files, eye movements, and cued-retrospective reports help? An in-depth qualitative case study. Inter- national Journal of Innovation and Learning, 24(2), 152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ ijil. 2018. 10014 361 · DOI
  62. Raney, G. E., Campbell, S. J., & Bovee, J. C. (2014). Using eye movements to evaluate the cognitive processes involved in text comprehension. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 83, 1-7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3791/ 50780 · DOI
  63. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
  64. Roldan, S. M. (2017). Object Recognition in Mental Representations: Directions for Exploring Diagnostic Features through Visual Mental Imagery. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 833. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2017. 00833 · DOI
  65. Scheiter, K., & Van Gog, T. (2009). Using Eye Tracking in Applied Research to Study and Stimulate the Processing of Infor- mation from Multi-representational Sources. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1209-1214. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ acp. 1524 · DOI
  66. Schmidt, S., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Roeper, J., Klose, V., Weber, M., Bültmann, A.-K., & Brückner, S. (2020). Undergradu- ate students' critical online reasoning -process mining analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2020. 576273 · DOI
  67. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The content-source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences (pp. 379-402). MIT Press.
  68. Sülflow, M., & Schäfer, S. (2019). Selective attention in the news feed: An eye tracking study on the perception and selec- tion of political news posts on Facebook. New Media Society, 21(1), 168-190. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14614 44818 791520 · DOI
  69. Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ dmal. 97802 62562 324. 073 · DOI
  70. Velichkovsky, B. M. (1999). From levels of processing to stratification of cognition: Converging evidence from three domains of research. In B. H. Challis & B. M. Velichkovsky (Eds.), Stratification in cognition and consciousness (p. 203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  71. Wade, N. (2015). How Were Eye Movements Recorded Before Yarbus? Perception, 44(8-9), 851-883. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03010 06615 594947 · DOI
  72. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when search- ing the World Wide Web for information. Computers and Education, 52(1), 234-246. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2008. 08. 003 · DOI
  73. Wang, Q., Yang, S., Liu, M., Cao, Z., & Ma, Q. (2014). An eye tracking study of website complexity from cognitive load perspective. Decision Support Systems, 62, 1-10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dss. 2014. 02. 007 · DOI
  74. Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134-144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ asi. 10016 · DOI
  75. Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., & Ortega, T. (2018). Why Google Can't Save Us. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Ed.), Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of InformaTiOn (pp. 221-228). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachme- dien Wiesbaden.
  76. Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2014). A question of credibility -Effects of source cues and recommendations on information selection on news sites and blogs. Communications, 39(4), 435-456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ commun-2014-0020 · DOI
  77. Wirth, W., Böcking, T., Karnowski, V., & Von Pape, T. (2007). Heuristic and systematic use of search engines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 778-800. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1083-6101. 2007. 00350.x · DOI
  78. Zhang, X., Cole, M. & Belkin, N. (2011). Predicting users' domain knowledge from search behaviors. In W.-Y. Ma, J.-Y. Nie, R. Baeza-Yates, T.-S. Chua, & W. B. Croft (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. New York: ACM Press. 1225-1226
  79. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Brückner, S., Fischer, J., Molerov, D., & Schmidt, S. (2021a). Performance Assessment and Digital Training Framework for Young Professionals´ Generic and Domain-Specific Online Reasoning in Law, Medicine and Teacher Practice. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education, 13, 9-36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15366/ jospo e2021. 13. 001 · DOI
  80. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Brückner, S., Molerov, D., & Bisang, W. (2019). What Can We Learn from Theoretical Considera- tions and Empirical Evidence on Positive and Negative Learning in Higher Education? Implications for an Interdis- ciplinary Research Framework. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Ed.), Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of InformaTiOn (PLATO) (pp. 281-303). Springer.
  81. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Hartig, J., Goldhammer, F., & Krstev, J. (2021b). Students' online information use and learning progress in higher education -A critical literature review. Studies in Higher Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2021. 19533 36 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kunz, A.-K., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Schmidt, S., Nagel, M.-T., & Brückner, S.
Affiliations
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Smart Learning Environments
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-10-09
Volume
11
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-7091 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40561-024-00333-6
OpenAlex
W4403222223
Cited by
12
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4
FWCI
5.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Smart Learning Environments (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Gutenberg Open Science (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Gutenberg Open Science (cc-by)
Funders
  • RMU Initiativfond
  • Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
Keywords
online information evaluation, source credibility, university students, eye tracking, heuristic processing, information literacy, online learning resources

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