Science and News
A Study of Students' Judgments of Online Scientific News Information
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29173/istl25Abstract
This paper explores how students judge scientific news resources, as they might find through a Google search. The data were collected as part of an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded project. Students used a simulated search engine that ensured study participants found the same search results while seeking information for a science-related school project. The 116 students from high school, community college, undergraduate, and graduate communities evaluated three online news resources for their helpfulness, citability, credibility, and container. Analysis of quantitative data from the study indicated that students may find news resources helpful for a science project, but do not always consider them citable. Students appeared to focus on the organization that produced the news resource (i.e., source) when judging its credibility. Not all students identified the resources’ containers as news, even when the source was widely known. The researchers note differences in judgment between educational stages. Differences were especially pronounced between high school and higher education students, with high school students more likely to find news sources worthy of citing for school projects.
Downloads
References
Allan, S. 2009. Making science newsworthy: exploring the conventions of science journalism. In: Hollman, R. et al., editors. Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press. p.149–156.
American Association of School Librarians. 2018. AASL standards framework for learners. [Internet]. Available from: https://standards.aasl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/180206-AASL-framework-for-learners-2.pdf.
Association of College and Research Libraries. 2015. Framework for information literacy for higher education. [Internet]. Available from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.
Bucchi, M. 2017. Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science communication 2.0. Public Understanding of Science 26(8):890-893. DOI: 10.1177/0963662517733368.
Buhler, A. & Cataldo, T. 2016. Identifying e-resources: an exploratory study of university students. Library Resources & Technical Services 60(1):23–37. DOI: 10.5860/lrts.60n1.23.
Buhler, A., Cataldo, T.T., Faniel, I.M., Connaway, L.S., Valenza, J.K., Graff, R., & Elrod, R.2015. Researching students’ information choices: determining identity and judging credibilityin digital spaces. [Internet]. IMLS Grant Project LG-81-15-0155. Available fromhttp://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00037208/00001/citation.
Flanagin, A.J. & Metzger, M.J. 2000. Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77(3):515–540. DOI: 10.1177/107769900007700304.
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 & Society 9(2):319–342. DOI: 10.1177%2F1461444807075015.
Flanagin, A.J. & Metzger, M.J. 2008. Digital media and youth: unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In: Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., editors. Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. p. 5–27.
Flanagin, A.J. & Metzger, M.J. 2010. Kids and Credibility: An Empirical Examination of Youth, Digital Media Use, and Information Credibility. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
Funk, C. 2017. Mixed messages about public trust in science. Issues in Science & Technology 34(1):86-88. Available from https://issues.org/real-numbers-mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/.
Funk, C., Gottfried, J. & Mitchell, A. 2017. Science news and information today. [Internet]. Available from http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/20/science-news-and-information-today/.
Gupta, N., Hamilton, K. & Chamot, J. 2013. Conveying cutting-edge discoveries to nonscientists: effective communication with media. JOM: The Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 65(7):835–839. DOI: 10.1007/s11837-013-0617-0.
Haas, A. & Unkel, J. 2017. Ranking versus reputation: perception and effects of search result credibility. Behaviour & Information Technology 36(12):1285–98. DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2017.1381166.
Hansen, A. 2016. The changing uses of accuracy in science communication. Public Understanding of Science 25(7):760–774. DOI: 10.1177/0963662516636303.
Head, A.J. 2013. Learning the ropes: how freshmen conduct course research once they enter college. [Internet]. Project Information Literacy Passage Studies Research Report. Available from: https://www.projectinfolit.org/uploads/2/7/5/4/27541717/pil_2013_freshmenstudy_fullreportv2.pdf.
Horrigan, J.B. 2017. How people approach facts and information. [Internet]. Available from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/09/11/how-people-approach-facts-and-information/.
Klawitter, E. & Hargittai, E. 2018. Shortcuts to well being? evaluating the credibility of online health information through multiple complementary heuristics. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 62(2): 251–268. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2018.1451863.
Lazer, D., Baum, M., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A., Greenhill, K., Menczer, F., Metzger, M., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., et al. 2018. The science of fake news. Science 359(6380):1094–1096. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao2998.
Leeder, C. 2016. Student misidentification of online genres. Library & Information Science Research 38(2):125–132. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2016.04.003.
Metzger, M.J. & Flanagin, A.J. 2013. Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics 59, Part B:210–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012.
Metzger, M.J. & Flanagin, A.J. 2015. Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online. In: Sundar S.S., editor. The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology. Oxford (UK): John Wiley & Sons. p. 445–466. DOI: 10.1002/9781118426456.ch20.
Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J. & Medders, R.B. 2010. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication 60(3):413–439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x.
Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J. & Nekmat, E. 2015. Comparative optimism in online credibility evaluation among parents and children. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 59(3):509–529.DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2015.1054995.
Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J. & Zwarun, L. 2003. College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education 41(3):271–290. DOI: 10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00049-6.
Siegfried, T. 2010. Flaws of statistics afflict science news reporting. Science News 177(7):2. DOI: 10.1002/scin.5591770702.
Treise, D., Walsh-Childers, K., Weigold, M.F. & Friedman, M. 2003. Cultivating the science internet audience: impact of brand and domain on source credibility for science information. Science Communication 24(3): 309–332. DOI: 10.1177/1075547002250298.
Unkel, J. & Haas, A. 2017. The effects of credibility cues on the selection of search engine results. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68(8):1850–62. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23820.
Westerwick, A. 2013. Effects of sponsorship, web site design, and Google ranking on the credibility of online information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18(2): 80–97. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12006.
Williams, P. & Rowlands, I. 2007. Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: The Literature on Young People and Their Information Behaviour. London (UK): British Library/JISC.
Zhang, Y. 2018. Retailing science: genre hybridization in online science news stories. Text & Talk 38(2):243–265. DOI: 10.1515/text-2017-0040.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Tara Tobin Cataldo, Kailey Langer, Amy G Buhler, Samuel R Putnam, Rachael Elrod, Ixchel M Faniel, Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Christopher Cyr, Brittany Brannon, Joyce Kasman Valenza, Erin M Hood, Randy A Graff
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
