Benefits of expert example standards depend on example quality: largest for incorrect examples, absent for correct ones¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·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 For incorrect examples, expert example standards significantly reduced bias (ηp2 = .10); for correct examples, no statistically significant effects emerged. → 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 · r3
Splitting examples by expert rating, the article reports a significant bias effect for incorrect examples (ηp2 = .10) and for partially correct examples (ηp2 = .09), while for correct examples the ANOVA showed no statistically significant effects (p = .067 for expert standards).
"For incorrect examples, concerning bias an ANOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect of expert example standards, F(1, 105) = 11.89, p = .001, ηp2 = .10."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Providing expert example standards reduces bias in learners' evaluations of self-generated examples — a broader claim this one bears on
- Idea unit standards do not enhance judgment accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
- Expert example standards did not significantly enhance relative accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — 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
- Example quality does not significantly moderate the effects of the standards on judgment accuracy when aggregated across concepts — reports the opposite
- Providing expert example standards enhances absolute judgment accuracy in evaluating self-generated examples — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
expert-standards-benefit-scope-by-example-quality |
title |
Benefits of expert example standards depend on example quality: largest for incorrect examples, absent for correct ones |
description |
Benefits of expert example standards depend on example quality: largest for incorrect examples, absent for correct ones |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
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.