The proliferation of complex and often conflicting digital information demands advanced cognitive strategies to discern source trustworthiness effectively. Yet, many readers remain on “autopilot” or favour personal justification over investigating who's behind the information. Let's explore how different educational strategies can break these automatic habits and foster a more analytical mindset. Drawing on a study of 179 university students, Gaston Saux and his team compared traditional teacher-led instruction with symmetric peer-tutoring. Their findings reveal that while both methods were effective, peer-tutoring's effect was clearer when participants justified their evaluation decisions in a specific task and reported their criteria for justifying their trust in online information in general. By bridging the gap between cognitive theory and classroom practice, this research aims to reflect on what interventions are more effective to promote critical source evaluation.
More about the speaker
Gaston Ignacio Saux is a researcher at the Argentinean National Scientific and Research Council (CONICET) and head of the “Text Comprehension and New Reading Contexts” program at CIPP-UCA (Buenos Aires). After earning a Ph.D. from the University of Buenos Aires and completing a CNRS-funded postdoctoral position at the University of Poitiers, he shifted his focus from inference generation to strategic source evaluation while reading in unreliable digital environments. Currently, his research team seeks to bridge the gap between basic cognitive research and effective, reflective reading practices.





