CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesLibrary Science and Information LiteracyEducation and Critical Thinking Development

Assessing university students’ critical online reasoning ability: a conceptual and assessment framework with preliminary evidence

Open access
Molerov, Dimitri, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Olga, Nagel, Marie-Theres, Brückner, Sebastian, Schmidt, Susanne, Shavelson, Richard J.·2020·Frontiers in Education
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2020.577843
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Critical evaluation skills when using online information are considered important in many research and education frameworks; critical thinking and information literacy are cited as key twenty-first century skills for students. Higher education may play a special role in promoting students' skills in critically evaluating (online) sources. Today, higher education students are more likely to use the Internet instead of offline sources such as textbooks when studying for exams. However, far from being a value-neutral, curated learning environment, the Internet poses various challenges, including a large amount of incomplete, contradictory, erroneous, and biased information. With low barriers to online publication, the responsibility to access, select, process, and use suitable relevant and trustworthy information rests with the (self-directed) learner. Despite the central importance of critically evaluating online information, its assessment in higher education is still an emerging field. In this paper, we present a newly developed theoretical-conceptual framework for Critical Online Reasoning (COR), situated in relation to prior approaches (“information problem-solving,” “multiple-source comprehension,” “web credibility,” “informal argumentation,” “critical thinking”), along with an evidence-centered assessment framework and its preliminary validation. In 2016, the Stanford History Education Group developed and validated the assessment of Civic Online Reasoning for the United States. At the college level, this assessment holistically measures students' web searches and evaluation of online information using open Internet searches and real websites. Our initial adaptation and validation indicated a need to further develop the construct and assessment framework for evaluating higher education students in Germany across disciplines over their course of studies. Based on our literature review and prior analyses, we classified COR abilities into three uniquely combined facets: (i) online information acquisition, (ii) critical information evaluation, and (iii) reasoning based on evidence, argumentation, and synthesis. We modeled COR ability from a behavior, content, process, and development perspective, specifying scoring rubrics in an evidence-centered design. Preliminary validation results from expert interviews and content analysis indicated that the assessment covers typical online media and challenges for higher education students in Germany and contains cues to tap modeled COR abilities. We close with a discussion of ongoing research and potentials for future development.

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 · 10.3389/feduc.2020.577843

Cites

8 of 8 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 Molerov et al., 2020

    The Introduction and Content Perspective say students need to evaluate credibility, identify trustworthy sources, and use suitable information rather than assume online information is reliable. The passages do not address ethical use or academic responsibility, so those parts of the attributed claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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: 130

  1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., et al. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta- analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1102-1134. doi: 10.3102/00346543083 26084 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Akamine, S., Kato, Y., Inui, K., and Kurohashi, S. (2008). "Using appearance information for web information credibility analysis, " in 2nd International Symposium on Universal Communication, 2008: ISUC 2008; 15-16 December, 2008, Osaka, Japan (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 363-365. doi: 10.1109/ISUC.2008.80 · DOI
  3. American Library Association (2000). Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Available online at: http://www.ala.org/ acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency (accessed June 24, 2020). doi: 10.5860/crln.61.3.207 · DOI
  4. Arazy, O., and Kopak, R. (2011). On the measurability of information quality. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62, 89-99. doi: 10.1002/asi.21447 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Arffman, I. (2007). The problem of equivalence in translating texts in international reading literacy studies: a text analytic study of three English and Finnish texts used in the PISA 2000 reading test (dissertation). University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
  6. Banerjee, M., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., and Roeper, J. (2020). Narratives and their impact on students' information seeking and critical online reasoning in higher education economics and medicine. Front. Educ. 5:625. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020. 570625 · DOI
  7. Batista, J. C. L., and Marques, R. P. F. (2017). Information and Communication Overload in the Digital Age. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2061-0. · DOI
  8. ch001 · DOI
  9. Beck, K. (2020). "On the relationship between "Education" and "Critical Thinking", " in Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of InformaTiOn (PLATO), ed O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 73-87.
  10. Blummer, B., and Kenton, J. M. (2015). Improving Student Information Search: A Metacognitive Approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1533/978178063 4623. · DOI
  11. Braasch, J. L. G., and Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educ. Psychol. 52, 167-181. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219 · DOI
  12. Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., and McCrudden, M. T. (2018). Handbook of Multiple Source Use. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. doi: 10.4324/9781315627496 · DOI
  13. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., and Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21, 487-508. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.005 · DOI
  14. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., and Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Comput. Educ. 53, 1207-17. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004 · DOI
  15. Braten, I., Stadtler, M., and Salmeron, L. (2018). "The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension, " in Handbook of Discourse Processes, eds M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, and M. A. Britt (New York, NJ: Taylor and Francis), 141-166. doi: 10.4324/9781315687384-10 · DOI
  16. Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., and Metzger, M. J. (2014). Knowledge and processes that predict proficiency in digital literacy. Reading Writing 27, 1567-1583. doi: 10.1007/s11145-014-9507-2 · DOI
  17. Catalano, A. (2013). Patterns of graduate students' information seeking behavior: a meta-synthesis of the literature. J. Doc. 69, 243-274. doi: 10.1108/00220411311300066 · DOI
  18. Chen, S., and Chaiken, S. (1999). "The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context, " in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, eds S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 73-96.
  19. Choi, W. (2015). A new framework of web credibility assessment and an exploratory study of older adults' information behavior on the web (dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.
  20. Ciampaglia, G. L. (2018). "The digital misinformation pipeline, " in Positive Learning in the Age of Information, eds O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, G. Wittum, and A. Dengel (Wiesbaden: Springer), 413-421. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-19567-0_25 · DOI
  21. Damico, J. S., and Panos, A. (2018). Civic media literacy as 21st century source work: future social studies teachers examine web sources about climate change. J. Soc. Stud. Res. 42, 345-359. doi: 10.1016/j.jssr.2017.10.001 · DOI
  22. Daniels, J. (2009). Cloaked websites: propaganda, cyber-racism and epistemology in the digital era. N. Media Soc. 11, 659-683. doi: 10.1177/1461444809105345 · DOI
  23. De Neys, W. D. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: two systems but one reasoner. Psychol. Sci. 17, 428-433. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01723.x · DOI
  24. Dunbar, N. E., Connelly, S., Jensen, M. L., Adame, B. J., Rozzell, B., Griffith, J. A., et al. (2014). Fear appeals, message processing cues, and credibility in the websites of violent, ideological, and nonideological groups. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 19, 871-889. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12083 · DOI
  25. Fischer, F. (2018). Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: The Roles of Domain- Specific and Domain-General Knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
  26. Fischer, F., Chinn, C., Engelmann, K., and Osborne, J. (2018). Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: The Roles of Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge, 1st Edn. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203731826-1 · DOI
  27. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., et al. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Front. Learn. Res. 2, 28-45. doi: 10.14786/flr.v2i2. · DOI
  28. Flanagin, A. J., and Metzger, M. J. (2014). "Digital media and perceptions of source credibility in political communication, " in The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication, eds K. Kenski, and K. Hall (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 417-436. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013. · DOI
  29. Flanagin, A. J., Metzger, M. J., and Hartsell, E. (2010). Kids and Credibility: An Empirical Examination of Youth, Digital Media Use, and Information Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/8778.001.0001 · DOI
  30. Flanagin, A. J., Winter, S., and Metzger, M. J. (2018). Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: the role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Inf. Commun. Soc. 23, 1038-1059. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1547411 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Flore, M., Balahur, A., Podavini, A., and Verile, M. (2019). Understanding Citizens' Vulnerability to Disinformation and Data-driven Propaganda. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2760/919835 · DOI
  32. Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Kameda, T., Solomon, J., Rangnekar, A., and Boyd, J. (2001a). "Web credibility research, " in CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ed M. Tremaine (New York, NY: ACM), 295. doi: 10.1145/634067.634242 · DOI
  33. Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., et al. (2001b). "What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study, " in Proceedings of CHI '01: The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, eds J. Jacko, and A. Sears (New York, NY: ACM Press), 61-68. doi: 10.1145/365024.365037 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., and Tauber, E. R. (2003). "How do users evaluate the credibility of web sites?, " in Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, ed J. Arnowitz (New York, NY: ACM), 1-15. doi: 10.1145/997078.997097 · DOI
  35. Gasser, U., Cortesi, S., Malik, M., and Lee, A. (2012). Youth and Digital Media: From Credibility to Information Quality. Cambridge, MA: The Berkman Center for Internet and Society. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2005272 · DOI
  36. George, J. F., Giordano, G., and Tilley, P. A. (2016). Website credibility and deceiver credibility: expanding prominence-interpretation theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 83-93. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.065 · DOI
  37. George, J. F., Tilley, P., and Giordano, G. (2014). Sender credibility and deception detection. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014. 02.027 · DOI
  38. Go, E., You, K. H., Jung, E., and Shim, H. (2016). Why do we use different types of websites and assign them different levels of credibility? Structural relations among users' motives, types of websites, information credibility, and trust in the press. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 231-239. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015. 07.046 · DOI
  39. Goldman, S. R., and Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). "Learning from multiple sources in a digital society, " in International Handbook of the Learning Sciences, eds F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, and P. Reimann (London: Routledge), 86-95. doi: 10.4324/9781315617572-9 · DOI
  40. Gronchi, G., and Giovannelli, F. (2018). Dual process theory of thought and default mode network: a possible neural foundation of fast thinking. Front. Psychol. 9:1237. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01237 · DOI
  41. Hahnel, C., Kroehne, U., Goldhammer, F., Schoor, C., Mahlow, N., and Artelt, C. (2019). Validating process variables of sourcing in an assessment of multiple document comprehension. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 524-537. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12278 · DOI
  42. Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, 5th Edn. New York, NY: Psychology Press. doi: 10.4324/9781315885278 · DOI
  43. Harkness, J. A. (2003). "Questionnaire translation, " in Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, eds J. A. Harkness, F. van de Vijver, and P. P. Mohler (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons), 35-56.
  44. Head, A., and Eisenberg, M. B. (2009). Project information literacy progress report: "lessons learned": how college students seek information in the digital age. SSRN Electron. J. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2281478 · DOI
  45. Jahn, D. (2012). Kritisches Denken fördern können: Entwicklung eines didaktischen Designs zur Qualifizierung pädagogischer Professionals [Fostering critical thinking: developing a didactic design for qualification of pedagogical professionals] (dissertation), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürmberg, Erlangen, Germany.
  46. Jahn, D., and Kenner, A. (2018). "Critical thinking in higher education: how to foster it using digital media, " in The Digital Turn in Higher Education, eds D. Kergel, B. Heidkamp, P. K. Telléus, T. Rachwal, and S. Nowakowski (Wiesbaden: Springer), 81-109. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-19925-8_7 · DOI
  47. Jozsa, E., Komlodi, A., Ahmad, R., and Hercegfi, K. (2012). "Trust and credibility on the web: the relationship of web experience levels and user judgments, " in IEEE 3rd international conference on cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom) (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 605-610. doi: 10.1109/CogInfoCom.2012.6422051 · DOI
  48. Juvina, I., and van Oostendorp, H. (2008). Modeling semantic and structural knowledge in web navigation. Discourse Process. 45, 346-364. doi: 10.1080/01638530802145205 · DOI
  49. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809477 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Kakol, M., Nielek, R., and Wierzbicki, A. (2017). Understanding and predicting web content credibility using the content credibility corpus. Inf. Process. Manag. 53, 1043-1061. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2017.04.003 · DOI
  51. Kane, M. (2012). Validating score interpretations and uses. Lang. Test. 29, 3-17. doi: 10.1177/0265532211417210 · DOI
  52. Kingsley, K., Galbraith, G. M., Herring, M., Stowers, E., Stewart, T., and Kingsley, K. V. (2011). Why not just google it? An assessment of information literacy skills in a biomedical science curriculum. BMC Med. Educ. 11:1. doi. 10.1186/1472-6920-11-17 · DOI
  53. KMK (2016). Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in Germany. Bildung in der digitalen Welt Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz. [Education in the digital world. KMK strategy paper]. Retrieved from https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/ PresseUndAktuelles/2018/Digitalstrategie_2017_mit_Weiterbildung.pdf
  54. Kohnen, A. M., and Mertens, G. E. (2019). I'm always kind of double-checking: exploring the information-seeking identities of expert generalists. Reading Res. Q. 54, 279-297. doi: 10.1002/rrq.245 · DOI
  55. Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media Cult. Soc. 33, 211-221. doi: 10.1177/0163443710393382 · DOI
  56. Krämer, N. C., Preko, N., Flanagin, A., Winter, S., and Metzger, M. (2018). "What do people attend to when searching for information on the web, " in ICPS, Proceedings of the Technology, Mind, and Society Conference, Washington, DC (New York, NY: The Association for Computing Machinery). doi: 10.1145/3183654.3183682 · DOI
  57. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. J. Doc. 339-355. doi: 10.1108/eb026918 · DOI
  58. Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Gomez, K., Manning, F., and Braasch, J. (2012). "Assessing multiple source comprehension through evidence-centered design, " in Reaching an Understanding: Innovations in How We View Reading Assessment, eds J. P. Sabatini, T. O'Reilly, and E. Albro (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education), 3-17.
  59. Leeder, C., and Shah, C. (2016). Practicing critical evaluation of online sources improves student search behavior. J. Acad. Libr. 42, 459-468. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2016.04.001 · DOI
  60. List, A., and Alexander, P. A. (2017). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educ. Psychol. 52, 143-147. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1328309 · DOI
  61. Liu, O. L., Frankel, L., and Crotts Roohs, K. (2014). Assessing Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Current State and Directions for Next-Generation Assessment. Princeton, NJ: ETS. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12009 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Lucassen, T., and Schraagen, J. M. (2011). Factual accuracy and trust in information: the role of expertise. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62, 1232-1242. doi: 10.1002/asi.21545 · DOI
  63. Lucassen, T., and Schraagen, J. M. (2013). The influence of source cues and topic familiarity on credibility evaluation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 1387-1392. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.036 · DOI
  64. Maurer, A., Schloegl, C., and Dreisiebner, S. (2017). Comparing information literacy of student beginners among different branches of study. Libellarium 9:2. doi: 10.15291/libellarium.v9i2.280 · DOI
  65. Maurer, M., Quiring, O., and Schemer, C. (2018). "Media effects on positive and negative learning, " in Positive Learning in the Age of Information, eds O. Zlatkin- Troitschanskaia, G. Wittum, and A. Dengel (Wiesbaden: Springer), 197-208. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-19567-0_11 · DOI
  66. Maurer, M., Schemer, C., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., and Jitomirski, J. (2020). "Positive and negative media effects on university students' learning: preliminary findings and a research program, " in Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of Information (PLATO), ed O. Zlatkin- Troitschanskaia (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 109-119. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-26578-6_8 · DOI
  67. McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., and Schraw, G. J. (2011). Text Relevance and Learning From Text. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_354 · DOI
  68. McGrew, S., Smith, M., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., and Wineburg, S. (2019). Improving university students' web savvy: an intervention study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 485-500. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12279 · DOI · Paper page
  69. McMullin, S. L. (2018). The correlation between information literacy and critical thinking of college students: an exploratory study (dissertation thesis). University of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States (ProQuest LLC).
  70. Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 2078-2091. doi: 10.1002/asi. 20672 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Metzger, M. J., and Flanagin, A. (2015). "Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online" in The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, ed S. S. Sundar (Chichester; Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell), 445-466. doi: 10.1002/9781118426456. · DOI
  72. ch20 · DOI
  73. Metzger, M. J., and Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. J. Pragmatics 59, 210-220. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Mislevy, R. J. (2017). Socio-Cognitive Foundations of Educational Measurement. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315871691 · DOI
  75. Mislevy, R. J., and Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of evidence- centered design for educational testing. Educ. Meas. 25, 6-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00075.x · DOI
  76. Moore, T. (2013). Critical thinking: seven definitions in search of a concept. Stud. Higher Educ. 38, 506-522. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.586995 · DOI
  77. Münchow, H., Richter, T., von der Mühlen, S., and Schmid, S. (2019). The ability to evaluate arguments in scientific texts: measurement, cognitive processes, nomological network, and relevance for academic success at the university. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 501-523. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12298 · DOI
  78. Murray, M. C., and Pérez, J. (2014). Unraveling the digital literacy paradox: how higher education fails at the fourth literacy. Issues Inf. Sci. Inf. Technol. 11, 189-210. doi: 10.28945/1982 · DOI
  79. Nagel, M.-T., Schäfer, S., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Schemer, C., Maurer, M., Molerov, D., et al. (2020). How do university students' web search behavior, website characteristics, and the interaction of both influence students' critical online reasoning? Front. Educ. 5:1. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.565062 · DOI
  80. National Research Council (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  81. Oser, F. K. (2018). "Positive learning through negative learning -the wonderful burden of PLATO, " in Positive Learning in the Age of Information: A Blessing or a Curse? (Wiesbaden: Springer VS), 363-372.
  82. Oser, F. K., and Biedermann, H. (2020). "A three-level model for critical thinking: critical alertness, critical reflection, and critical analysis, " in Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of InformaTiOn (PLATO), ed O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 89-106.
  83. Pellegrino, J. W. (2017). "Teaching, learning and assessing 21st century skills, " in Educational Research and Innovation. Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, ed S. Guerriero (Paris: OECD Publishing), 223-251. doi: 10.1787/9789264270695-12-en · DOI
  84. Pirolli, P., and Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychol. Rev. 106, 643-675. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643 · DOI
  85. Podgornik, B. B., Dolničar, D., and GlaŽar, S. A. (2017). Does the information literacy of university students depend on their scientific literacy? Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13, 3869-3891. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2017. · DOI
  86. 00762a · DOI
  87. Reese, S. D., and Shoemaker, P. J. (2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere: the hierarchy of influences model. Mass Commun. Soc. 19, 389-410. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2016.11 74268 · DOI
  88. Rieh, S. Y. (2014). Credibility assessment of online information in context. J. Inf. Sci. Theory Pract. 2, 6-17. doi: 10.1633/JISTaP.2014.2.3. · DOI
  89. Roozenbeek, J., and van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5:133. doi: 10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9 · DOI · Paper page
  90. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web- Based Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Available online at: http://www.loc. gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0625/2005052083-d.html (accessed June 24, 2020). doi: 10.4324/9780203820094 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., Kintsch, W., and Fajardo, I. (2005). Reading strategies and hypertext comprehension. Discourse Process. 40, 171-191. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4003_1 · DOI
  92. Salmerón, L., Kammerer, Y., and García-Carrión, P. (2013). Searching the web for conflicting topics: page and user factors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2161-2171. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.034 · DOI
  93. Samson, S. (2010). Information literacy learning outcomes and student success. J. Acad. Libr. 36, 202-210. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2010.03.002 · DOI
  94. Sanders, L., Kurbanoglu, S., Boustany, J., Dogan, G., and Becker, P. (2015). Information behaviors and information literacy skills of LIS students: an international perspective. J. Educ. Libr. Inf. Sci. Online 56, 80-99. doi: 10.12783/issn.2328-2967/56/S1/ · DOI
  95. Schmidt, S., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Roeper, J., Klose, V., Weber, M., Bültmann, A.-K., et al. (2020). Undergraduate students' critical online reasoning -process mining analysis. Front. Psychol. (in press). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.576273 · DOI
  96. Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F. (2017). The Spread of Fake News by Social Bots. Available online at: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1707.07592 (accessed June 24, 2020).
  97. Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Beck, K., Schmidt, S., and Mariño, J. P. (2019). Assessment of university students' critical thinking: next generation performance assessment. Int. J. Test. 19, 337-362. doi: 10.1080/15305058.2018.1543309 · DOI
  98. Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., and Mariño, J. (2018). "International performance assessment of learning in higher education (iPAL): research and development, " in Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education - Cross-National Comparisons and Perspectives, eds O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, and C. Lautenbach (Wiesbaden: Springer), 193-214. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74338-7_10 · DOI
  99. Shoemaker, P. J., and Reese, S. D. (2014). Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology Perspective, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. doi: 10.4324/9780203930434 · DOI
  100. Solano-Flores, G., Backhoff, E., and Contreras-Niño, L. Á. (2009). Theory of test translation error. Int. J. Test. 9, 78-91. doi: 10.1080/153050509028 80835 · DOI
  101. Sparks, J. R., Katz, I. R., and Beile, P. M. (2016). Assessing digital information literacy in higher education: a review of existing frameworks and assessments with recommendations for next-generation assessment. ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 2016, 1-33. doi: 10.1002/ets2.12118 · DOI
  102. Stanovich, K. E., West, R., and Toplak, M. E. (2016). The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034845.001.0001 · DOI
  103. Sundar, S. S. (2008). "The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility, " in Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, eds M. J. Metzger, and A. J. Flanagin (Cambridge: MIT Press), 73-100.
  104. Tanaka, K. (2009). "Web search and information credibility analysis: bridging the gap between web1.0 and web2.0, " in ICUIMC 2009: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (Suwon), 39-44.
  105. Tanaka, K., Kawai, Y., Zhang, J., Nakajima, S., Inagaki, Y., Ohshima, H., et al. (2010). "Evaluating credibility of web information, " in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Uniquitous Information Management and Communication -ICUIMC '10, eds W. Kim, D. Won, K.-H. You, and S.-W. Lee (New York, NY: ACM Press), 1-10. doi: 10.1145/2108616.2108645 · DOI
  106. Threadgill, E. J., and Price, L. R. (2019). Assessing online viewing practices among college students. J. Media Lit. Educ. 11, 37-55. doi: 10.23860/JMLE-2019-11-2-3 · DOI
  107. Tseng, S., and Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Commun. ACM 42, 39-44. doi: 10.1145/301353.301402 · DOI
  108. Van Eemeren, F. H. (2013). Fallacies as derailments of argumentative discourse: acceptance based on understanding and critical assessment. J. Pragmatics 59, 141-152. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.006 · DOI
  109. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., and Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2008). Information- problem solving: a review of problems students encounter and instructional solutions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 623-648. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.030 · DOI
  110. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., and Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the world wide web for information. Comput. Educ. 52, 234-246. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.003 · DOI
  111. Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Critical Reasoning and Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511807039 · DOI
  112. Walton, D., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511802034 · DOI
  113. Walton, G., Barker, J., Pointon, M., Turner, M., and Wilkinson, A. (2020). "Information literacy and the societal imperative of information discernment, " in Informed Societies: Why Information Literacy Matters for Citizenship, Participation and Democracy, ed S. Goldstein (London: Facet Publishing), 149. doi: 10.29085/9781783303922.010 · DOI
  114. Wathen, C. N., and Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the web. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 53, 134-144. doi: 10.1002/asi.10016 · DOI
  115. Wierzbicki, A. (2018). Web Content Credibility. New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77794-8 · DOI
  116. Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., and Ortega, T. (2018). "Why google can't save us. The challenges of our post-gutenberg moment, " in Positive Learning in the Age of Information, eds O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, G. Wittum, and A. Dengel (Wiesbaden: Springer), 221-228. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-19567-0_13 · DOI
  117. Wineburg, S., and McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information (Working Paper). Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3048994 (accessed July 22, 2018). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3048994 · DOI · Paper page
  118. Winter, S., Metzger, M. J., and Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective use of news cues: a multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. J. Commun. 66, 669-693. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12241 · DOI
  119. Xie, I. (2008). Interactive Information Retrieval in Digital Environments. Hershey: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-240-4 · DOI
  120. Zhang, S., and Duke, N. K. (2008). Strategies for internet reading with different reading purposes: a descriptive study of twelve good internet readers. J. Lit. Res. 40, 128-162. doi: 10.1080/10862960802070491 · DOI
  121. Zhang, S., Duke, N. K., and Jiménez, L. M. (2011). The WWWDOT approach to improving students' critical evaluation of websites. Reading Teach. 65, 150-158. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01016 · DOI
  122. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O. (2020). Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of InformaTiOn (PLATO). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-26578-6 · DOI
  123. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Beck, K., Fischer, J., Braunheim, D., Schmidt, S., and Shavelson, R. J. (2020a). The role of students' beliefs when critically reasoning from multiple contradictory sources of information in performance assessments. Front. Psychol. 11:2192. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02192 · DOI
  124. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Brückner, S., Molerov, D., and Bisang, W. (2020b). "What can we learn from theoretical considerations and empirical evidence on learning in higher education? Implications for an interdisciplinary research framework, " in Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of InformaTiOn (PLATO), ed. O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 287-309.
  125. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Dengel, A., and Wittum, G. (2018a). Positive Learning in the Age of Information: A Blessing or a Curse? Wiesbaden: Springer VS. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-19567-0 · DOI
  126. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Schmidt, S., Molerov, D., Shavelson, R. J., and Berliner, D. (2018). "Conceptual fundamentals for a theoretical and empirical framework of positive learning, " in Positive Learning in the Age of Information: A Blessing or a Curse?, eds O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, A. Dengel, and G. Wittum (Wiesbaden: Springer VS.), 29-50.
  127. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Shavelson, R. J., Schmidt, S., and Beck, K. (2019). On the complementarity of holistic and analytic approaches to performance assessment scoring. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 468-484. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12286 · DOI
  128. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Toepper, M., Molerov, D., Buske, R., Brückner, S., Pant, H. A., et al. (2018b). "Adapting and validating the collegiate learning assessment to measure generic academic skills of students in Germany: implications for international assessment studies in higher education, " in Assessment of Learning Outcomes in Higher Education, eds O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, M. Toepper, H. A. Pant, C. Lautenbach, and C. Kuhn (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 245-266. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74338-7_12 · DOI
  129. Zumbo, B. D., and Hubley, A. M. (2017). Understanding and Investigating Response. Processes in Validation Research. Cham: Springer, 69. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56129-5 · DOI
  130. Zylka, J., Christoph, G., Kröhne, U., Hartig, J., and Goldhammer, F. (2015). Moving beyond cognitive elements of ICT literacy. First evidence on the structure of ICT engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 53, 149-160. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015. 07.008 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Molerov, D., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Nagel, M.-T., Brückner, S., Schmidt, S., & Shavelson, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Molerov, Dimitri
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2020-12-15
Volume
5
ISSN
2504-284X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/feduc.2020.577843
OpenAlex
W3111447020
Cited by
70
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • edoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • edoc Publication server (Humboldt University of Berlin) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
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, information literacy, university students, evaluation framework, evidence-centered design, web credibility, argumentation, information acquisition, construct validation, rubrics

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