Students Rate the Credibility of Climate Change Information

Abstract

Students are increasingly using social media to find out about scientific topics and, as recipients of information, must independently assess the credibility of information. From a theoretical perspective, this evaluation might be based on either or both of two different strategies: plausibility strategies, which assess the truthfulness of scientific information, or trust strategies, which assess the trustworthiness of spokespersons. A high-quality assessment of plausibility requires scientific expertise. An assessment of the trustworthiness of a spokesperson, on the other hand, necessitates knowledge of the social and communicative aspects of the Nature of Science (NOS). In a cross-sectional study using an authentic performance test, N = 91 tenth-grade students with no prior training were presented with case vignettes containing information about the consequences of human-caused climate change. The vignettes were constructed in a way that they potentially allow for the application of either or both strategies. The students were prompted to rank the case vignettes according to their credibility and to justify their rankings. During this process, students had unrestricted access to the internet. It was found that the participants preferred making plausibility judgments compared to trust judgments. However, the results also indicate that the application of trust strategies led relatively more often to adequate assessments of credibility compared to plausibility strategies. At the same time, students’ justifications reveal underlying preconceptions regarding NOS. Based on these findings, learning opportunities should be developed that reinforce trust judgments about spokespersons while building on the students’ pre-instructional ideas about the social aspects of NOS.