The Research Behind Civic Online Reasoning

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

• Digital information overload threatens democracy

  • Young people (and many adults) increasingly get information through digital devices.
  • When people can’t find or assess trustworthy information, democracy is at risk.

• Current digital literacy efforts often aren’t effective

  • Many approaches rely on outdated, lengthy checklists and questions that don’t reliably help learners judge credibility.
  • People can be misled by surface-level design cues, such as:
    • Slick modern website design
    • Lack of spelling errors
    • Pages without banner ads
    • “About” pages where organizations tell self-serving stories
  • As a result, websites can be manipulated and distorted in ways that mislead students.

• Students have flawed assumptions about credibility

  • Many students assume:
    • The top-level domain (the last part of a URL) indicates reliability
    • The first search result is automatically the best
  • They also struggle with core tasks:
    • Distinguishing ads vs. news
    • Identifying the organization behind a website

• Research-backed solution: “Lateral reading”

  • The Stanford History Education Group conducted major research to understand what works.
  • 2014 study (18 months, thousands of students):
    • Participants ranged from middle school through college.
    • Students struggled with basic evaluations of online content.
  • Follow-up observation with professional fact-checkers:
    • Fact-checkers used a strategy called lateral reading.
    • Lateral reading strategy: leave the target site and consult the broader web to verify reliability.

• How fact-checkers evaluate vs. how students do

  • Students’ approach (as observed):
    • Stayed on the unfamiliar site
    • Wasted time without first checking who is behind the information
  • Fact-checkers’ approach (as observed):
    • First go elsewhere (open new tabs)
    • Look for information about:
      • Who is behind the site/content
      • Whether they are trustworthy
    • Build judgments using external context rather than the site’s self-presentation

• Civic Online Reasoning / “CORE” curriculum

  • The lateral reading strategy was translated into a teaching approach: civic online reasoning.
  • Three guiding questions structure how students evaluate sources (the curriculum’s core).
  • The curriculum is:
    • Developed by Stanford History Education Group
    • In partnership with MediaWise, Poynter Institute, local media associations
    • Supported by Google.org
  • It is:
    • Modular and flexible for different subjects
    • Supported by real classroom research and rigorous peer review
    • Shared widely through publications globally
  • Goal: not to make students professional fact-checkers, but to help them:
    • Prevent common evaluation errors
    • Identify reliable vs. untrustworthy sources
    • Reduce manipulation
    • Improve informed decision-making (including voting and civic life)

---

Methodology / instruction-style content (detailed bullets)

Core method: “Lateral reading” (fact-checker-inspired approach)

1. Stop relying on the original site
   • Don’t judge credibility solely by what the page looks like or what it claims.
2. Leave the site
   • Open new browser tabs and go to other sources.
3. Research the organization behind the information
   • Determine who created or publishes the content.
4. Use outside evidence to assess trustworthiness
   • Find broader context about reliability (e.g., corroboration and credibility signals from other references).
5. Use guiding evaluation questions
   • Apply the curriculum’s three core questions to structure the judgment process.

Common ineffective approach the curriculum contrasts against (students’ observed behavior)

• Stay on the unfamiliar site
• Fail to first check who is behind it
• Spend time on the content without verifying credibility externally

---

Speakers / sources featured (identified)

• Stanford History Education Group
• MediaWise
• Poynter Institute
• Local media associations
• Google.org
• Professional fact-checkers (described as a source group observed in the study)