Science on the Web: Student Evaluations of Scientific Arguments

Abstract

The World Wide Web is rapidly growing as a source of scientific information for the layperson. Web sites presented challenges relating to multiple layers of argument, missing evidence and evidence that cannot be corroborated, and insufficient detail. Student weaknesses stemmed from their episte-mological stance, their overreliance on surface features rather than systematic analysis, metacognitive failures, and a failure to understand the nature of science and publishing. The terms argumentation and critical thinking are sometimes used interchangeably, although argumentation is perhaps better regarded as employing critical thinking skills in service of assessing a set of claims. Critical thinking prescriptions tend to be domain general, and thus fit the general skills model. Accuracy is one of the most difficult criteria. Ideally, assessing accuracy involves corroborating claims through independent sources. Reasonableness measures how well information coheres with students’ worldviews.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 138 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.