Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks

Alexandra List, Patricia A. Alexander

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Students’ confidence in their responses to a multiple text-processing task and their justifications for those confidence ratings were investigated. Specifically, 215 undergraduates responded to two academic questions, differing by type (i.e., discrete and open-ended) and by domain (i.e., developmental psychology and astrophysics), using a digital library of seven varied texts (e.g., journal article, newspaper, Wikipedia). Students then indicated how confident they were in their responses and provided justifications for their level of confidence. This investigation had four main goals: (a) to determine the strength of students’ response confidence; (b) to understand the criteria students use to derive their confidence ratings; (c) to consider the effect of task conditions on ratings and justifications; and (d) to examine the relation between students’ response confidence ratings and justifications and the accuracy and quality of their responses. Students’ justifications for response confidence were found to vary across task conditions. Further justifications for response confidence based on sources consulted (i.e., text-directed justifications) were found to relate to response accuracy for the discrete question and to response quality for the open-ended question.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)407-436
Number of pages30
JournalMetacognition and Learning
Volume10
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

confidence
rating
student
text processing
developmental psychology
Wikipedia
newspaper

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education

Cite this

List, Alexandra ; Alexander, Patricia A. / Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks. In: Metacognition and Learning. 2015 ; Vol. 10, No. 3. pp. 407-436.
@article{4b4261bd473b4a1cac7aabee40b2cfe8,
title = "Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks",
abstract = "Students’ confidence in their responses to a multiple text-processing task and their justifications for those confidence ratings were investigated. Specifically, 215 undergraduates responded to two academic questions, differing by type (i.e., discrete and open-ended) and by domain (i.e., developmental psychology and astrophysics), using a digital library of seven varied texts (e.g., journal article, newspaper, Wikipedia). Students then indicated how confident they were in their responses and provided justifications for their level of confidence. This investigation had four main goals: (a) to determine the strength of students’ response confidence; (b) to understand the criteria students use to derive their confidence ratings; (c) to consider the effect of task conditions on ratings and justifications; and (d) to examine the relation between students’ response confidence ratings and justifications and the accuracy and quality of their responses. Students’ justifications for response confidence were found to vary across task conditions. Further justifications for response confidence based on sources consulted (i.e., text-directed justifications) were found to relate to response accuracy for the discrete question and to response quality for the open-ended question.",
author = "Alexandra List and Alexander, {Patricia A.}",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11409-015-9138-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "407--436",
journal = "Metacognition and Learning",
issn = "1556-1623",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks. / List, Alexandra; Alexander, Patricia A.

In: Metacognition and Learning, Vol. 10, No. 3, 01.12.2015, p. 407-436.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Examining response confidence in multiple text tasks

AU - List, Alexandra

AU - Alexander, Patricia A.

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - Students’ confidence in their responses to a multiple text-processing task and their justifications for those confidence ratings were investigated. Specifically, 215 undergraduates responded to two academic questions, differing by type (i.e., discrete and open-ended) and by domain (i.e., developmental psychology and astrophysics), using a digital library of seven varied texts (e.g., journal article, newspaper, Wikipedia). Students then indicated how confident they were in their responses and provided justifications for their level of confidence. This investigation had four main goals: (a) to determine the strength of students’ response confidence; (b) to understand the criteria students use to derive their confidence ratings; (c) to consider the effect of task conditions on ratings and justifications; and (d) to examine the relation between students’ response confidence ratings and justifications and the accuracy and quality of their responses. Students’ justifications for response confidence were found to vary across task conditions. Further justifications for response confidence based on sources consulted (i.e., text-directed justifications) were found to relate to response accuracy for the discrete question and to response quality for the open-ended question.

AB - Students’ confidence in their responses to a multiple text-processing task and their justifications for those confidence ratings were investigated. Specifically, 215 undergraduates responded to two academic questions, differing by type (i.e., discrete and open-ended) and by domain (i.e., developmental psychology and astrophysics), using a digital library of seven varied texts (e.g., journal article, newspaper, Wikipedia). Students then indicated how confident they were in their responses and provided justifications for their level of confidence. This investigation had four main goals: (a) to determine the strength of students’ response confidence; (b) to understand the criteria students use to derive their confidence ratings; (c) to consider the effect of task conditions on ratings and justifications; and (d) to examine the relation between students’ response confidence ratings and justifications and the accuracy and quality of their responses. Students’ justifications for response confidence were found to vary across task conditions. Further justifications for response confidence based on sources consulted (i.e., text-directed justifications) were found to relate to response accuracy for the discrete question and to response quality for the open-ended question.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84947046399&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84947046399&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11409-015-9138-2

DO - 10.1007/s11409-015-9138-2

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84947046399

VL - 10

SP - 407

EP - 436

JO - Metacognition and Learning

JF - Metacognition and Learning

SN - 1556-1623

IS - 3

ER -