Generating examples produces overconfident judgments of learning, especially for principles and procedures¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i3large
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i3 Student teachers who generated examples were more overconfident in identifying knowledge types than those who read or classified examples, particularly for principles and procedures. → Tim M. Steininger 2022
Evidence¶
Tim M. Steininger 2022¶
Tim M. Steininger, Jörg Wittwer, Thamar Voss. (2022). Classifying Examples is More Effective for Learning Relational Categories Than Reading or Generating Examples. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09584-7
q3 · i3 · causal · r2
Judgment bias was computed as the signed difference between z-transformed certainty ratings and knowledge-test performance. The contrast (generating +2 vs. reading/classifying −1) was "significant, V = 0.174 (Pillai’s trace), F(4, 77) = 4.05, p = .003, η2 = 0.17"; univariate effects were significant for principles (η2 = 0.08) and procedures (η2 = 0.13).
"The multivariate analysis was significant, V = 0.174 (Pillai’s trace), F(4, 77) = 4.05, p = .003, η2 = 0.17. Follow-up univariate analyses showed that the planned contrast was significant for principles and procedures as types of knowledge"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Fluent Illusions Mislead Self Assessment — related
- Learning relational categories becomes more difficult as the complexity of the knowledge type increases — related
- Prior Knowledge Needed For Accurate Self Assessment — a broader claim this one bears on
- Classifying provided examples is more effective for learning relational categories than reading or generating examples — related
- Reading provided examples is not more effective than generating examples for learning relational categories — related
- Learners are substantially overconfident when evaluating the quality of their self-generated examples — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
example-generation-overconfidence-judgment-bias |
title |
Generating examples produces overconfident judgments of learning, especially for principles and procedures |
description |
Generating examples produces overconfident judgments of learning, especially for principles and procedures |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — tim-m-steininger-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.