Presentation Title

Lateral reading, critical thinking: Teaching students to evaluate online information like the pros

Type of Presentation

Workshop

Target Audience

Higher Education

Location

Session Four Breakouts

Abstract

Wineburg and McGrew (2019) compared the online evaluation skills of PhD historians, Stanford University undergraduates, and professional fact-checkers. They found that professional fact-checkers were significantly more efficient and effective at evaluating sources than the other groups. Their secret? Lateral reading. In his OER book Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers, Mike Caulfield describes lateral reading as reading “across many connected sites instead of digging deep into the site at hand” (2017, ch. 16).

In this session, an information literacy coordinator/liaison librarian will provide background and context on lateral reading; compare lateral reading to “vertical reading,” the traditional way we have taught online source evaluation that has focused on the characteristics of a source itself; and demonstrate lateral reading activities she has used in workshops for a variety of audiences. The sample activities will demonstrate how lateral reading activities can be adapted based on audience, context, time frame, and mode of delivery. Participants will leave the session with ideas for teaching lateral reading skills in a variety of information literacy contexts.

References:

Caulfield, M. (2017). Web literacy for student fact-checkers. https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/

Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record, 121(11), 1–40.

Presentation Description

In Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers, Mike Caulfield describes lateral reading as reading “across many connected sites instead of digging deep into the site at hand” (2017, ch. 16). Research indicates that lateral reading is a powerful tool for fact-checking and online source evaluation. This interactive session will provide a comparison between lateral reading and more traditional vertical reading strategies for evaluating web sources, as well as sample interactive activities for teaching lateral reading skills in a variety of contexts.

Would you be willing to serve as a Session Moderator?

YES

Keywords

source evaluation, online sources, lateral reading, active learning

Publication Type and Release Option

Presentation (Open Access)

Share

COinS
 
Mar 26th, 1:00 PM Mar 26th, 2:00 PM

Lateral reading, critical thinking: Teaching students to evaluate online information like the pros

Session Four Breakouts

Wineburg and McGrew (2019) compared the online evaluation skills of PhD historians, Stanford University undergraduates, and professional fact-checkers. They found that professional fact-checkers were significantly more efficient and effective at evaluating sources than the other groups. Their secret? Lateral reading. In his OER book Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers, Mike Caulfield describes lateral reading as reading “across many connected sites instead of digging deep into the site at hand” (2017, ch. 16).

In this session, an information literacy coordinator/liaison librarian will provide background and context on lateral reading; compare lateral reading to “vertical reading,” the traditional way we have taught online source evaluation that has focused on the characteristics of a source itself; and demonstrate lateral reading activities she has used in workshops for a variety of audiences. The sample activities will demonstrate how lateral reading activities can be adapted based on audience, context, time frame, and mode of delivery. Participants will leave the session with ideas for teaching lateral reading skills in a variety of information literacy contexts.

References:

Caulfield, M. (2017). Web literacy for student fact-checkers. https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/

Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record, 121(11), 1–40.