Gaining insight through explaining? How generating explanations affects individuals’ perceptions of their own and of experts’ knowledge

Nina Vaupotič, Dorothe Kienhues, Regina Jucks
{"title":"Gaining insight through explaining? How generating explanations affects individuals’ perceptions of their own and of experts’ knowledge","authors":"Nina Vaupotič, Dorothe Kienhues, Regina Jucks","doi":"10.1080/21548455.2021.2018627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When individuals in our knowledge society assess the extent of their own knowledge, they may overestimate what they actually know. But, this knowledge illusion can be reduced when people are prompted to explain the content. To investigate whether this holds true for written self-explanations about science phenomena this study transfers the Illusion of explanatory depth (IOED) paradigm to learning from a written science-related text. In an experimental group design, individuals (N = 155) first read information on artificial intelligence supported weather forecasting and then either did or did not produce a written explanation on the topic. Afterwards they rated their own knowledge on the topic, rated experts’ knowledge on the topic, answered questions on their strategies for handling scientific information and rated their own topic specific intellectual humility. Results show that participants in all experimental conditions rated their own knowledge significantly lower than that of experts; however, providing the written explanation about predicting severe weather events did not significantly affect the dependent measures. Implications address how giving explanations may influence judgements of one’s own and scientists’ knowledge in the context of reading science-related texts.","PeriodicalId":45375,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Science Education Part B-Communication and Public Engagement","volume":"16 1","pages":"42 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Science Education Part B-Communication and Public Engagement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2021.2018627","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT When individuals in our knowledge society assess the extent of their own knowledge, they may overestimate what they actually know. But, this knowledge illusion can be reduced when people are prompted to explain the content. To investigate whether this holds true for written self-explanations about science phenomena this study transfers the Illusion of explanatory depth (IOED) paradigm to learning from a written science-related text. In an experimental group design, individuals (N = 155) first read information on artificial intelligence supported weather forecasting and then either did or did not produce a written explanation on the topic. Afterwards they rated their own knowledge on the topic, rated experts’ knowledge on the topic, answered questions on their strategies for handling scientific information and rated their own topic specific intellectual humility. Results show that participants in all experimental conditions rated their own knowledge significantly lower than that of experts; however, providing the written explanation about predicting severe weather events did not significantly affect the dependent measures. Implications address how giving explanations may influence judgements of one’s own and scientists’ knowledge in the context of reading science-related texts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过解释获得洞察力?产生解释如何影响个人对自己和专家知识的看法
在我们的知识社会中,当个人评估自己的知识程度时,他们可能会高估自己实际知道的知识。但是,当人们被提示解释内容时,这种知识错觉可以减少。为了研究这是否适用于关于科学现象的书面自我解释,本研究将解释深度错觉(IOED)范式转移到从书面科学相关文本中学习。在一个实验组设计中,个体(N = 155)首先阅读有关人工智能支持的天气预报的信息,然后就该主题给出或不给出书面解释。之后,他们对自己对该主题的了解程度进行了评分,对专家对该主题的了解程度进行了评分,回答了有关他们处理科学信息的策略的问题,并对自己的主题特定的智力谦逊程度进行了评分。结果表明,在所有实验条件下,被试对自身知识的评价均显著低于专家;而提供灾害性天气事件预测的书面说明对相关测度的影响不显著。在阅读科学相关文本的背景下,给出解释如何影响自己的判断和科学家的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: International Journal of Science Education Part B: Communication and Public Engagement will address the communication between and the engagement by individuals and groups concerning evidence-based information about the nature, outcomes, and social consequences, of science and technology. The journal will aim: -To bridge the gap between theory and practice concerning the communication of evidence-based information about the nature, outcomes, and social consequences of science and technology; -To address the perspectives on communication about science and technology of individuals and groups of citizens of all ages, scientists and engineers, media persons, industrialists, policy makers, from countries throughout the world; -To promote rational discourse about the role of communication concerning science and technology in private, social, economic and cultural aspects of life
期刊最新文献
A pedagogy for success: two stories from STEM Young children’s agency in the science museum: insights from the use of storytelling in object-rich galleries Public education about ShakeAlert® earthquake early warning: evaluation of an animated video in English and Spanish Virtual reality in astronomy education: reflecting on design principles through a dialogue between researchers and practitioners Collaborative capacity-building for collective evaluation: a case study with informal science education centers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1