The Grading Process in System 1 and System 2 of Thinking: A Behavioral Economic Approach to Evaluation

Amalia Călinescu

doi:10.55544/ijrah.3.6.12

Authors

Amalia Călinescu University Lecturer, Department of Applied Modern Languages, University of Bucharest, ROMANIA. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7360-8418

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55544/ijrah.3.6.12

Keywords:

System 1 and System 2 of thinking, intuition, reason, heuristics and biases, confirmation bias, The Book Thief, grading

Abstract

The concepts of heuristics and biases underlie the decision-making process both at intuitive and rational levels, which Daniel Kahneman refers to as System 1 and System 2 of thinking. This research seeks to explore the interplay between these cognitive mechanisms and students’ grading decisions, examining the extent to which heuristics and biases can influence evaluation in the everyday process of learning and teaching. A survey was conducted, containing four grading situations that combine the experiences of reading, evaluation, and decision-making in four stages of System 1 and System 2 of thinking. The hypotheses and sub-hypotheses were tested using a quantitative approach, through a 15-item self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) in English, which collected data about the heuristics influencing Romanian students’ grading decision in four evaluative situations based on a synopsis of The Book Thief by Markus Zusak. The self-constructed questionnaire was filled in by 108 Romanian students studying for a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree in public and private universities. The data set was analyzed, using descriptive, inferential, and path-analysis methods (frequencies, percentages, measures of central tendency, t-tests, ANOVA, simple and multiple linear regression, mediation, and moderation) and one statistical program (R Studio 4.3.4.). Grade 1 (the most intuitive) can predict Grade 4 for the synopsis of The Book Thief. However, the correlation between Grades 2 + 3 and Grade 4 is much stronger than the correlation between Grade 1 and Grade 4. Furthermore, the impact of Grade 1 on Grade 4 is mediated by Grade 3 while Grade 1 has no effect on the impact of Grade 3 on Grade 4. The rational model of heuristics involved in the grading process is much stronger than the intuitive model. The study sheds light on the intricate interplay between intuition and rationality in the grading process, offering novel insights into the cognitive mechanisms that underlie decision-making.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Jensen, E. (1996). Brain-based Learning. Del Mar, CA: Turning Point Publishing.

Kincheloe, J. L., Steinberg, S. R., & Tippins, D. J. (1999). Einstein’s unique thinking style. In Counterpoints, 111, The Stigma of Genius: Einstein, Consciousness, and Education, 117-140, New York: Peter Lang AG. Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/42975467.

Petkovic, T. (2014). The achievement, legacy, intuition, and cosmopolitanism of Nikola Tesla. Almagest, 4(2), 60-85. DOI: 10.1484/J.ALMAGEST.1.103719.

Richards, D. G. (2000). Miracles of Mind: Exploring Nonlocal Consciousness and Spiritual Healing by Russell Targ and Jane Katra (Book Review). The Journal of Parapsychology, 64(1), 95, New Castle: Durham.

Chiekem, E. (2015). Grading practice as valid measures of academic achievement of secondary schools students for national development. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(26), 24-29.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Nuthall, G. A. (2005). The cultural myths and realities of classroom teaching and learning: A personal journey. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 895-934.

Tenglet, E., Löfgrenb, H., & Markström, A. M. (2022). Beyond reporting grades in grade talk: narratives about students’ paths in year four. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67, 345-359. DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2021.2021438.

Schinske J, & Tanner K. (2014) Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE Life Sci Educ,13(2):159-166. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054.

Cain J., et al. (2022). Deficiencies of traditional grading systems and recommendations for the future. Am J Pharm Educ, 86(7), 8850. DOI: 10.5688/ajpe8850.

Krijgsman, C. et al. (2017). Performance grading and motivational functioning and fear in physical education: A self-determination theory perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 202-211. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.017.

Peckham, I. (1993). Beyond grades. Composition Studies, 21(2), 16-31. Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/43501895.

Mather M. (2006). A Review of Decision-Making Processes: Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Aging. In L. L. Carstensen & C. R. Hartel, National Research Council (US) Committee on Aging Frontiers in Social Psychology, Personality, and Adult Developmental Psychology, When I'm 64, Washington (DC): National Academies Press.

Marzano, R. J., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Brookhart, S. M., et al. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803-848.

Linder, A., et al. (2022). Grading bias and young adult mental health. Health Econ, 32(3), 675-696. DOI: 10.1002/hec.4639.

Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Evolution and Cognition, 5(3), 97-109. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439.

Berthet, V. (2022). The Impact of cognitive biases on professionals’ decision-making: A review of four occupational areas. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, New Series, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Moral Intuition = Fast and Frugal Heuristics? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Moral Psychology: Vol 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intution and diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75-90.

Liao, S. M. (ed.) (2016). Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality, Oxford: Oxford UP.

Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A Model of Heuristic Judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, 267-293, New York: Cambridge UP.

Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2010). Moral intuitions. In J. M. Doris (ed.) & Moral Psychology Research Group, The Moral Psychology Handbook, 246-272, New York: Oxford UP.

Sale, D. (2015). The Heuristics of Effective Teaching. In Creative Teaching. Cognitive Science and Technology. Springer, Singapore. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-534-1_2.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychol Rev, 118(1), 97-109. DOI: 10.1037/a0020762.

Harvey, N. (2007). Use of heuristics: Insights from forecasting research. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(1), 5-24. DOI: 10.1080/13546780600872502.

Shams, M. A. (2002). The availability heuristic in judgments of research findings: Manipulations of subjective experience. Osprey Journal of Ideas and Inquiry, All Volumes (2001-2008), 112, 113-127.

Patterson, A., Quinn, L., & Baron, S. (2012). The power of intuitive thinking: A devalued heuristic of strategic marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(1), 35-44.

Peer, E. & Gamliel, E. (2013). Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decisions, Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 422, 113-118.

Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(2), 11-36.

Simon, H.A. (1990). Bounded Rationality. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (eds) Utility and Probability. The New Palgrave. Palgrave Macmillan, London DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-20568-4_5.

Malouff, J., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2016). Bias in grading: A meta-analysis of experimental research findings. Australian Journal of Education, 60(3), 1-12. DOI: 10.1177/0004944116664618.

Fabian, T. C., Schmidt, A. K., & Retelsdorf, J. (2023). Halo effects in grading: An experimental approach. Educational Psychology, 43(2-3), 246-262. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2023.2194593.

Noor, N., et al. (2023). Bias, Halo Effect and Horn Effect: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 13(3), 1116-1140. DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i3/16733.

MacDougall, M., et al. (2008). Halos and horns in the assessment of undergraduate medical students: A consistency-based approach. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(2), 116-128.

Cheng, K. H. C., Hui, C. H., & Cascio, W. F. (2017). Leniency bias in performance ratings: The big-five correlates. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 521. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00521.

Nimmer, J. G., & Stone, E. F. (1991). Effects of grading practices and time of rating on student ratings of faculty performance and student learning. Research in Higher Education, 32(2), 195-215. Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/40196004.

Thorsteinson, T. J., et al. (2008). Anchoring effects on performance judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 29-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.003.

Sevgin, M. (2020). Anchoring effect as a cognitive bias: An example of a classroom experiment. International Journal of Social Political and Economic Research, 7(3):608-629. DOI:10.46291/IJOSPERvol7iss3pp608-629.

Roumbanis, L. (2017). Academic judgments under uncertainty: A study of collective anchoring effects in Swedish Research Council panel groups, Soc Stud Sci, 47(1), 95-116. DOI:10.1177/0306312716659789.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.

Schmidt, K., et al. (2022). Teachers trust educational science - especially if it confirms their beliefs. Front. Educ., Sec. Teacher Education, 7. DOI:10.3389/feduc.2022.976556.

Bock, L. (2015). Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

Otuteye, E., & Siddiquee, M. (2015). Overcoming cognitive biases: A heuristic for making value investing decisions. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 16(2), 140-149. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2297170.

Vergis, A., Leung, C., & Roberston, R. (2020). Rater training in medical education: A scoping review. Cureus, 12(11), e11363. DOI:10.7759/cureus.11363.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271.

DOI:10.1177/0098628315589505.

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 472-477.

Evans, C., Cools, E., & Charlesworth, Z. M. (2010). Learning in higher education – how cognitive and learning styles matter. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(4), 467-478.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Approaches to studying, conceptions of learning and learning styles in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 288-293.

Abouzeid, E., et al. (2021). Influence of personality traits and learning styles on undergraduate medical students' academic achievement. Adv Med Educ Pract, 12, 769-777. DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S314644.

Goulston, M. (2009). Just Listen: Discover the Secret to Getting through to Absolutely Anyone. New York: Amacom.

Maeyer, J., & Talanquer, V. (2010). The role of intuitive heuristics in students’ thinking: ranking chemical substances. Science Education, 94(6), 963-984.

DOI:10.1002/sce.20397.

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.

West, R. F., Toplak, M., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930-941. DOI:10.1037/a0012842.

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins.

Thompson, V. A., Prowse, J. A., & Pennycook, T. G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition, Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001.

Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mlodinow, L. (2012). Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior. New York: Vintage Books.

Zusak, M. (2007). The Book Thief. Canada: Knopf Books for Young Readers.

Zusak, M. (2007). The Book Thief. Quote, 491. Available at: www.goodreads.com/quotes/62908-humans-if-nothing-else-have-the-good-sense-to-die.

Ayhan, H. Ö. (2011). Non-Probability Sampling Survey Methods. In International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science, 1-4, Springer.

White, E., Bruce K. A., & Saracci, R. (2008). Reducing measurement error and its effects. In Principles of Exposure Measurement in Epidemiology: Collecting, Evaluating, and Improving Measures of Disease Risk Factors, 141-174. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198509851.003.0005.

Ashton, M. C. (2023). Biological Bases of Personality, In Individual Differences and Personality (Fourth Edition), 111-129, Elsevier: Academic Press.

Widiger, T. A. & Crego, C. (2019). The Five Factor Model of personality structure: An update. World Psychiatry, 18(3), 271-272. DOI:10.1002/wps.20658.

Chiao, E. (2018). New study reveals four major personality types. Johns Hopkins: News-Letter. Available at: www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2018/10/new-study-reveals-four-major-personality-types.

Blasdel, J. CliffsNotes on The Book Thief. Available at: www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/the-book-thief/book-summary.

Carpenter, C. (2012). Learn How to Write a Synopsis Like a Pro. Writer’s Digest. Available at: www.writersdigest.com/improve-my-writing/learn-how-to-write-a-synopsis-like-a-pro.

Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). Sage.

Rotten Tomatoes Trailers. (2013). The Book Thief Official Trailer. Available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=92EBSmxinus.

Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211.

Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175-219.

Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional Blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Horstmann, N., Ahlgrimm, A., & Glöckner, A. (2009). How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(5), 335-354.

Glöckner, A., & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: A categorization of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking & Reasoning, 16(1), 1-25.