Gains in source evaluation held regardless of the order in which students took the two assessment forms¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Scores improved significantly in both counterbalanced sections: Section 1 rose from 3.59 to 7.7 points and Section 2 from 4.3 to 6.49 points. → Breakstone 2021

Evidence¶

Breakstone 2021¶

Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Connors, P., Ortega, T., Kerr, D., & Wineburg, S. (2021). Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Counterbalanced administration across the two course sections, analyzed with a repeated-measures ANOVA controlling for order effects. Section 2, taking the forms in the opposite order, improved from 4.3 points (SE = .32) to 6.49 points (SE = .42); no effect size was printed.

"Scores improved significantly regardless of the order in which students took the two forms (see Figure 1). For Section 1, which took Form A at pretest and Form B at posttest, mean scores improved from 3.59 points (SE = .31, 95% CI 2.97 to 4.21) to 7.7 points (SE = .42, 95% CI 6.83 to 8.49)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Civic Online Reasoning Instruction Improves Evaluation — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• College students' scores on an online source credibility assessment improved significantly after four course-embedded modules in an asynchronous nutrition course — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• One-session checklist (CRAAP) instruction in source evaluation did no better than the alternative methods it was compared with in two quasi-experiments — related