Who knows? Explaining impacts on the assessment of our own knowledge and of the knowledge of experts.

Autor/inn/en	Bromme, Rainer; Thomm, Eva; Ratermann, Katharina
Titel	Who knows? Explaining impacts on the assessment of our own knowledge and of the knowledge of experts.
Quelle	In: Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, 30 (2016) 2-3, S. 97-108Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1010-0652; 1664-2910
DOI	10.1024/1010-0652/a000175
Schlagwörter	Wissen; Denken; Kognition; Metakognition; Selbsteinschätzung; Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht; Kausalität; Verständnis
Abstract	Examined how elaborating on a subject affects individuals' metacognitive judgments about their own (personal) and others (social) knowledge. Children and adults are mostly too optimistic when assessing their understanding of complex causal entities. Only when asked to explain the underlying mechanisms of such entities, their metacognitive self-assessment becomes more realistic. The Illusion of Explanatory Depth (IOED) demonstrates the effects of arguing on metacognitive self-assessments. To test for this IOED effect, 146 adults assessed their own knowledge about topics regarding health improvement and climate protection before and after explaining the underlying causal mechanisms. Then, they were asked to judge the pertinence of different kinds of experts for the critical topics before and after the explaining task. Results show that arguing about complex causal mechanisms not only affected the assessments of one's own knowledge, but also the assessment about how pertinent knowledge is distributed among different kinds of experts. Results are discussed in the context of argumentative theory of reasoning and regarding their implications for science education. (ZPID).
Erfasst von	Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie, Trier
Update	2017/2