ecently, much attention has been placed on the need to help students develop
the ability to evaluate the credibility of online information. Students need such
an ability in order to be engaged citizens within a democratic-, information-,
and technology-based society as they research answers to both personal and
professional issues, a process that often occurs on the internet.
In online contexts, where anyone may publish what he or she wishes and little
information is vetted before it reaches readers, the ability to evaluate credibility
is especially important. So how should we go about teaching students to evaluate
credibility?
Although there are many skills, strategies, and habits of mind that go
into evaluation, developing the habits of mind—the ways of being, thinking,
and approaching text—can serve as the foundation from which to engage in
evaluation. Helping an online reader see herself as a “frontline judge,” responsible
for determining the extent to which information is credible, positions her to more
effectively evaluate.
Frontline judges of credibility take a critical stance, use flexible thinking,
triangulate evidence within and across texts, and view evaluation as an iterative
process. These habits of mind interact with and support one another throughout
the evaluation process.
Take a critical stance
Readers who take a critical stance, or attitude, toward text question the authority
of information as they use their own prior knowledge to construct meaning.
Thus, critical readers engage in parallel processes of questioning accuracy and
constructing meaning. Readers who take a critical stance analyze and evaluate
the meaning of text while considering how the author’s purpose, point of view,
and biases may impact this meaning, and while considering alternative points of
view. Because such a stance assumes that information is not necessarily all true,
or is not necessarily representative of multiple viewpoints, it allows readers to
approach text from a position of questioning credibility.
Use flexible thinking
Rather than viewing a single text as completely credible or completely
noncredible, viewing texts along a credibility continuum, as more or less
credible, may be helpful. Using flexible thinking also means considering multiple
credibility clues rather than forming conclusions about credibility on the basis of a
single clue alone.
For example, instead of concluding that a website is credible because it
uses a “.org” URL address—what we can think of as rigid, rather than flexible,
thinking—readers can use this as one of many clues. In fact, anyone may purchase
whatever type of URL address he or she wishes. Similarly, if readers generally
trust information from a certain publisher, they should still consider the
credibility of each new article they read, using multiple pieces of information from
Developing habits of mind for evaluating the credibility of
online information
FRONTLINE JUDGES
By Elena Forzani
Elena Forzani
(elenaforzani@gmail
.com), an ILA member since
2012, has taught students
in kindergarten through
12th grade. She is currently
an assistant professor in
literacy education at Boston
University in Massachusetts,
where her work focuses on
understanding how students
comprehend and evaluate
texts in online contexts.
Forzani is the recipient of the
ILA 2018 Timothy & Cynthia
Shanahan Outstanding
Dissertation Award.
LITERACY
LEADERSHIP
8
literacyworldwide.org | November/December 2018 | LITERACY TODAY