Can we ever really know what we know? - Lindsey Kojich

So… can we ever really know what we know? As with most things in life, it depends, and we don't fully know! Before embarking on the quest to figure out the answer to this question, we must first understand a little bit of history about what it means to know things.

The History of Epistemic Cognition and Metacognition

Back in the 1970s, William Perry constructed a model of epistemic cognition.…what is epistemic cognition you ask? According to Perry, individuals transition through successive levels of beliefs and views about knowledge (Greene et al., 2018). There have been many additional models proposed about epistemic cognition over the years all based on Perry’s work. Many of these models share the premise that individuals shift to more sophisticated views of knowledge and what it means to know things as they progress through education (Greene et al., 2018). Individuals typically begin viewing knowledge from a realist perspective, which means that you believe knowledge is essentially objective facts (Greene & Yu, 2016). Beyond the realist perspective is absolutism. Absolutism reflects the perspective that individuals can have objective knowledge, but also understand that their knowledge or perspective may not reflect reality (Greene & Yu, 2016). The following phase is multiplist. Multiplist perspective views knowledge as a “construction of reality” (Greene & Yu, 2016, pp. 47) meaning that knowledge is subjective and can change over time. The final phase is evaluativist. Evaluativsts believe that understanding or knowing everything is impossible, however we can use objective and subjective knowledge to help us understand the world around us (Greene & Yu, 2016).

At this point you are probably wondering why I am giving you a history lesson? Because without understanding an individual's beliefs about knowledge or epistemic cognition, it would be very difficult to know what we really know. That big question partially hinges on what an individual believes is knowledge and how knowledge is defined.

OKAY, so now that we have a little background on what epistemic cognition is and how beliefs about our knowledge can influence what we think knowledge is, we now need to understand more about reflecting on our knowledge, or metacognition. Metacognition is commonly described as thinking about thinking. Going back to the big question, if we are really able to know what we know, we HAVE to be able to think about what we know and self-assess our own knowledge. Metacognition has been well studied in a variety of fields and all agree that humans are able to self-reflect or think about their thinking (Greene et al., 2018).

Measuring Knowledge

Great, so we have established that we can in fact think about our thinking so the final step is to figure out how we measure our knowledge! The concept of evaluating how accurate we are about our knowledge is also known as knowledge calibration. Individuals can either be well calibrated (meaning that their assessment of their knowledge is accurate) or poorly calibrated depending on how they assess their knowledge compared to what they actually know. If an individual is poorly calibrated, they are either overconfident and know less than they think they do, or underconfident, knowing more than they think they do. Knowledge calibration is a field of research that goes back many decades. In fact, back in 1999 psychology researchers David Dunning and Justin Kruger … (Yes, THE Dunning and Kruger!!) performed four experiments on undergraduate students that evaluated participants’ ability to assess their knowledge. Four studies were performed in a variety of subjects. The first study investigated the calibration of humor and participants' ability to decide what jokes are funny and what jokes others would find funny. Results of this study found that generally, participants overestimated their ability to deduce what is funny and that individuals who were the most overconfident were the least aware of it … ouch (Kruger & Dunning, 1999)! The second study investigated the ability of participants to self-assess their logical reasoning compared to that of other students and estimate their success on a 20-item reasoning test. Dunning and Kruger found the same results on the logical reasoning study that they did with the humor study. Researchers went on to perform two additional studies focusing on grammar and metacognition. During these two studies, it was found that individuals with the poorest grammar were also deficient in metacognitive skills, however, if individuals are trained to improve their metacognitive skills, their knowledge calibration can improve (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).

So, relating this back to metacognition, individuals who have poor knowledge calibration typically have poor metacognition to judge their own knowledge, thus resulting in a poor self-assessment (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). The interesting other finding that they found throughout their studies is not just that individuals with poor competence have inflated self-assessment, but that individuals on the opposite end of the spectrum with high knowledge, tend to underestimate their knowledge (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Thus, individuals can be poorly calibrated two ways, either under-confident or over-confident.

Knowledge Calibration in the 20th Century

So now that we’ve learned about knowledge calibration and that a good chunk of us is pretty bad at evaluating how much we really know (yikes!) let's discuss how these concepts have been put to use in today’s society. Knowledge calibration has been well studied in the fields of psychology and education, and recently it is also being applied to other fields such as marketing and consumer sciences. Obviously, the use and dependency on computers and technology has skyrocketed over the last two decades. The quick rise and development of technology has really caused a spectrum of ability to use the internet. In fact, Dunning and Kruger’s research on knowledge calibration has now permeated other fields including studies on the world wide web. In 2007, Kishore Pillai and Charles Hofacker investigated knowledge calibration of the web and explored how involvement, usage, gender, knowledge type, and experience impact an individual's knowledge calibration. The researchers recruited two groups, one with 151 undergraduate business students and another group consisting of 153 adults (Pillai & Hofacker, 2007). Participants completed a questionnaire about their web usage, experience, knowledge, and involvement, and researchers then compared the answers of the two groups. At the end of the study, researchers concluded that involvement with the web assists in knowledge calibration and appropriate knowledge calibration in turn reduces user frustration with the web. Furthermore, researchers found that an individual's usage, experience, and gender did not affect their knowledge calibration (Pillai & Hofacker, 2007). Obviously, the concept of knowledge calibration can be applied to many different fields and may be different depending on topic being studied.

Bottom Line

So, what do we think? Can we ever really know what we know? Based on current research I’d say I’m not too confident, however, we can get closer to knowing what we know by being more calibrated and skilled at metacognition. Tips and tricks for that in another post. Thanks for reading!

About the author: Lindsey Kojich is a doctoral student in Health Sciences and a CISLL affiliate.

References

Greene, J. A., Cartiff, B. M., & Duke, R. F. (2018). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between epistemic cognition and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(8), 1084–1111. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000263

Greene, J. A., & Yu, S. B. (2016). Educating Critical Thinkers: The Role of Epistemic Cognition. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215622223

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

Pillai, K. G., & Hofacker, C. (2007). Calibration of consumer knowledge of the web. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.02.001

Book Review: Talking Back, Talking Black - Tremaine Love

McWhorter, J. (2016). Talking back, talking black: Truths about America's Lingua Franca. Bellevue Literary Press.

The Tale of Two Worlds has become a growing trend in America, where many individuals feel they live in alternate realities or dual lives. This concept is similar to wearing "the mask," as described by Paul Laurence Dunbar, or experiencing double consciousness, as discussed by Du Bois. Black Americans, in particular, often feel as if they live in two worlds, where they must code-switch between their community's language and Standard English, which is privileged in society. John McWhorter's book, "Talking Back, Talking Black," explores the linguistic and cultural significance of Black English in America and challenges negative stereotypes about it. 

McWhorter establishes the origins of Black English in the unique experiences and perspectives of African Americans, tracing its roots back to the forced migration of enslaved Africans to the United States and the development of Creole languages in the Caribbean and the American South. He argues that Black English represents a distinct linguistic and cultural heritage that has been shaped by cultural exchange. McWhorter acknowledges the cultural significance of Black English but emphasizes the importance of code-switching between different dialects in different contexts to improve one's chances of being hired, as Black English is not a widely recognized dialect. 

One of the book's strong suits is McWhorter's in-depth analysis of the dialect's linguistic complexity. He highlights distinctive features of Black English, such as phonological and grammatical features, which reflect complex linguistic systems that have developed over time in response to African Americans' social and cultural experiences. McWhorter demonstrates how particular words are used in context through voice inflection and interchangeable words, highlighting the poetic qualities of Black English. He also challenges common stereotypes and misconceptions about Black English, arguing that it is a fully-formed and complex language system with its own grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. McWhorter offers a compelling case for the value and legitimacy of Black English as a distinct dialect worthy of appreciation and respect. 

However, McWhorter's belief that there should not be a standard language falls short. Every society needs a standard language, and in America, it is Standard English. Many immigrant groups have adopted Eurocentric values, such as speaking standard English. McWhorter does not oppose Eurocentric values but emphasizes the importance of recognizing and respecting Black English for its unique cultural and linguistic features while acknowledging the dialect's colloquial uniqueness in its rhythmic cadence, euphemisms, and metaphorical groupings. 

Actually, he masterfully addressed the issue of racism in this text. Many readers might assume that the rejection of Black English by white Americans is rooted in the belief that it is an improper way of speaking, that it violates rules of grammar, and is indicative of ignorance, bigotry, and a lack of education or intelligence among Black people. However, McWhorter's nuanced and sophisticated approach highlights the bidialectal fluency of many Black Americans, which challenges these stereotypes and provides evidence that Black English is a legitimate and necessary form of communication with its own rules and structures. 

In conclusion, McWhorter's book offers a compelling analysis of the linguistic and cultural significance of Black English, challenging negative stereotypes and misconceptions about it. The concept of living in two worlds or navigating multiple identities is a common experience for many Black Americans, and McWhorter's work adds an important perspective to ongoing discussions of language and identity in America.

About the author: Tremaine Love is a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction specializing in Curriculum Leadership and a CISLL affiliate. 

Does listening to the audiobook “count”? - Kiran Brar

    Technology has made audiobooks more accessible than ever, especially with the increasing prevalence of smartphones in everyday life. You can download audiobooks to your device and listen to them seamlessly anywhere, without interruptions related to having to flip over a cassette or change the CD. Even public libraries have digital audiobooks available to borrow for free, further increasing accessibility. People who are visually impaired, learning a new language, or have other reading or learning difficulties can benefit from having the option to listen to audiobooks, either alone or alongside text. However, for the average person, the accessibility of audiobooks also brings up the question whether listening to the audiobook is the same as reading the book – that is, does it count as reading the book if you listen to the audiobook instead?

    To begin answering the question whether listening to the audiobook counts, we first need to define what we mean by audiobook. Jessica Moyer, an assistant professor in the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin, defines audiobooks to be audio recordings of readings of printed text that are professionally narrated. In a 2011 study published in the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Moyer investigated whether there were differences in comprehension scores and engagement or interest scores between three different modalities: (1) reading a physical book, (2) reading a digital book on an e-reader, such as a Kindle or Nook, or (3) listening to an audiobook. Participants in the study read 4-6 pages of a printed physical book and approximately the same number of pages of a digital book on an e-reader, and listened to about 10 minutes of an audiobook. In each modality, participants read or listened to a different book, and the modality order was randomized across participants. Analyses showed that there were no significant differences in comprehension across the three modalities, nor were there any significant differences in engagement or interest across the three modalities. These findings support the idea that listening to the audiobook counts as much as reading the text, either physical or digital, in terms of comprehension.

    In addition to comprehension, what are the differences between listening to an audiobook and reading the text on retention? A study published on SAGE Open in 2016 provides a look at comprehension and retention of the preface and a chapter of a non-fiction book in adults. College educated participants were randomly assigned to three conditions: (1) listen to audiobook, (2) read e-text, or (3) listen to audiobook and read the e-text simultaneously of the selected portions of the non-fiction book, Unbroken. They administered comprehension tests to measure immediate comprehension of the material, and their results supported other findings that there is not a significant difference in comprehension between listening to the audiobook and reading the book. Researchers also explored whether there were any differences in gender between males and females, and there were not. When looking at retention two weeks later, participants in all of the three conditions retained similar amounts of information, consistent with the earlier comprehension results. Analyses also showed similar results for gender, with no significant differences in retention between males and females. In addition to supporting the earlier findings that listening to the audiobook is the same as reading the book when it comes to comprehension, the study takes it a step further to demonstrate that retention of the content is not impacted by modality either.

    Don’t throw out all your books in favor of audiobooks yet! In their recent review of literature related to audiobooks, print, and comprehension published in the Educational Psychology Review, Anisha Singh and Patricia Alexander from the University of Maryland noted that their review resulted in their realization that whether listening to the audiobook is the same as reading the book is dependent on a number of conditions. One of these conditions is the genre of the book, which was observed to contribute to differences in comprehension in the reviewed studies. Studies comparing reading printed text and audiobooks by genre found that reading expository books led to better comprehension than listening to the audiobook, which contrasts earlier conclusions that there is not a significant difference in listening to the audiobook and reading the book. While audiobooks, used alone or in conjunction with a textbook, can be useful learning tools for secondary and college students with reading or learning concerns, the benefits of audiobooks for comprehension seem to be negligible for others. However, they argue that narrative books that tell a story are generally better suited to audiobooks than expository texts, which are mostly factual and impersonal, because the flow of a story facilitates comprehension.

    These findings are informative, but it is important to note that many were controlled experiments and not really reflective of how most people actually engage with audiobooks in real life. How often does one sit and listen to an audiobook, without any distractions? Oftentimes we are engaged in another activity, like driving or doing housework, while listening to an audiobook. Daniel Willingham, a psychologist from the University of Virginia, notes in his New York Times Opinion piece that it is not possible to multitask, meaning we only get a general idea of the content when listening to the audiobook while performing other tasks, and miss the subtleties. This aligns with findings that narrative texts are better suited for audiobooks; we can fill in the details and still engage with a story even while distracted. So does listening to the audiobook “count”? Well, it seems clear that students probably should not buy audio textbooks to listen to instead of reading the text, but that listening to the audiobook is valuable for comprehension in some conditions. I leave you with a quote from Willingham’s article:

“Our richest experiences will come not from treating print and audio interchangeably, but from understanding the differences between them and figuring out how to use them to our advantage — all in the service of hearing what writers are actually trying to tell us.”

About the author: Kiran Brar is a doctoral student in Educational Psychology and a CISLL affiliate.

References

Moyer, J. E. (2011). What does it really mean to “read” a text? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(3), 253–256. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41320378

Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2016). Does modality matter? The effects of reading, listening, and dual modality on comprehension. SAGE Open, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016669550

Singh, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2022). Audiobooks, print, and comprehension: What we know and what we need to know. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 677–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09653-2

Willingham, D. T. (2018). Is listening to a book the same thing as reading it? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opinion/sunday/audiobooks-reading-cheating-listening.html