With developments in technology (e.g., “Web 2.0” sites that allow users to author and create media content) and the removal of publication barriers, the quality of science information online now varies vastly. These changes in the review of published science information, along with increased facility of information distribution, have resulted in the spread of misinformation about science. As such, the role of evaluation when reading scientific claims has become a pressing issue when educating students. While recent studies have examined educational strategies for supporting evaluation of sources and plausibility of claims, there is little extant work on supporting students in critiquing the claims for flawed scientific reasoning. This study tested the efficacy of a structured reading support intervention for evaluation and critique on cultivating a critical awareness of flawed scientific claims in an online setting. We developed and validated a questionnaire to measure epistemic vigilance, implemented a large-scale (N = 1081) Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of an original reading activity that elicits evaluation and critique of scientific claims, and measured whether the intervention increased epistemic vigilance of misinformation. Our RCT results suggested a moderate effect in students who complied with the treatment intervention. Furthermore, analyses of heterogeneous effects suggested that the intervention effects were driven by 11th-grade students and students who self-reported a moderate trust in science and medicine. Our findings point to the need for additional opportunities and instruction for students on critiquing scientific claims and the nature of specific errors in scientific reasoning.

中文翻译：

---

在信息时代与“坏科学”作斗争：刺激对虚假科学主张进行评估和批判的干预措施的效果

随着技术的发展（例如，允许用户创作和创建媒体内容的“Web 2.0”站点）和出版障碍的消除，现在在线科学信息的质量差异很大。对已发表科学信息进行审查的这些变化，以及信息分发便利性的增加，导致了关于科学的错误信息的传播。因此，评估在阅读科学主张时的作用已成为教育学生时的一个紧迫问题。虽然最近的研究已经检查了支持评估来源和声明合理性的教育策略，但目前很少有工作支持学生批评有缺陷的科学推理的声明。本研究测试了结构化阅读支持干预对评估和批评的有效性，以培养对在线环境中存在缺陷的科学主张的批判性意识。我们开发并验证了一个测量认知警觉度的问卷，实施了大规模的（N  = 1081) 一项原始阅读活动的随机对照试验 (RCT)，该活动引发对科学主张的评估和批评，并衡量干预是否提高了对错误信息的认知警惕。我们的 RCT 结果表明，对遵守治疗干预的学生有中等影响。此外，异质效应分析表明，干预效应是由 11 年级学生和自我报告对科学和医学具有中等信任度的学生驱动的。我们的研究结果表明，需要为学生提供更多机会和指导，以批评科学主张和科学推理中特定错误的性质。