Providing expert example standards reduces bias in learners' evaluations of self-generated examples¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · 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 i2 Students who received expert example standards showed significantly lower overall bias than students without them (ηp2 = .09). → Linda Froese 2022
Evidence¶
Linda Froese 2022¶
Linda Froese, Julian Roelle. (2022). Expert example standards but not idea unit standards help learners accurately evaluate the quality of self-generated examples. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09293-z
q3 · i2 · causal · r2
2×2 factorial ANOVA on overall bias in the N = 131 experiment found a significant main effect of expert example standards, ηp2 = .09, with lower bias in the expert-standards groups; the interaction was not significant.
"significant main effect of expert example standards, F(1, 127) = 12.00, p = .001, ηp 2 = .09. S tudents who received expert example standards showed lower overall bias."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Providing expert example standards enhances absolute judgment accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
- Benefits of expert example standards depend on example quality: largest for incorrect examples, absent for correct ones — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Learners are substantially overconfident when evaluating the quality of their self-generated examples — related
- Idea unit standards do not enhance judgment accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
- Expert example standards increase subjective task difficulty and mental effort during example evaluation — related
- Negative example standards do not reliably improve judgment accuracy and significantly decrease relative accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
- Expert example standards improve university students' judgment accuracy (bias, absolute accuracy, and relative accuracy) when evaluating self-generated examples — a broader claim this one bears on
- Providing a rubric reduces bias in self-assessment, moving judgments closer to expert ratings — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
expert-example-standards-reduce-bias |
title |
Providing expert example standards reduces bias in learners' evaluations of self-generated examples |
description |
Providing expert example standards reduces bias in learners' evaluations of self-generated examples |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — linda-froese-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.