IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0037719.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Reviewing Lead to Better Learning and Decision Making? Answers from a Randomized Stock Market Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Wessa
  • Ian E Holliday

Abstract

Background: The literature is not univocal about the effects of Peer Review (PR) within the context of constructivist learning. Due to the predominant focus on using PR as an assessment tool, rather than a constructivist learning activity, and because most studies implicitly assume that the benefits of PR are limited to the reviewee, little is known about the effects upon students who are required to review their peers. Much of the theoretical debate in the literature is focused on explaining how and why constructivist learning is beneficial. At the same time these discussions are marked by an underlying presupposition of a causal relationship between reviewing and deep learning. Objectives: The purpose of the study is to investigate whether the writing of PR feedback causes students to benefit in terms of: perceived utility about statistics, actual use of statistics, better understanding of statistical concepts and associated methods, changed attitudes towards market risks, and outcomes of decisions that were made. Methods: We conducted a randomized experiment, assigning students randomly to receive PR or non–PR treatments and used two cohorts with a different time span. The paper discusses the experimental design and all the software components that we used to support the learning process: Reproducible Computing technology which allows students to reproduce or re–use statistical results from peers, Collaborative PR, and an AI–enhanced Stock Market Engine. Results: The results establish that the writing of PR feedback messages causes students to experience benefits in terms of Behavior, Non–Rote Learning, and Attitudes, provided the sequence of PR activities are maintained for a period that is sufficiently long.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Wessa & Ian E Holliday, 2012. "Does Reviewing Lead to Better Learning and Decision Making? Answers from a Randomized Stock Market Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0037719
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037719
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037719
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037719&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0037719?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Wessa & Antoon De Rycker & Ian Edward Holliday, 2011. "Content-Based VLE Designs Improve Learning Efficiency in Constructivist Statistics Education," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Patrick Wessa, 2009. "A framework for statistical software development, maintenance, and publishing within an open-access business model," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 183-193, May.
    3. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-1151, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fankhauser, Samuel & Hepburn, Cameron, 2010. "Designing carbon markets. Part I: Carbon markets in time," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4363-4370, August.
    2. Caginalp, Gunduz & DeSantis, Mark, 2017. "Does price efficiency increase with trading volume? Evidence of nonlinearity and power laws in ETFs," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 467(C), pages 436-452.
    3. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Other publications TiSEM 43ded173-9eee-48a4-8a15-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Makarewicz, Tomasz, 2021. "Traders, forecasters and financial instability: A model of individual learning of anchor-and-adjustment heuristics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 626-673.
    5. Philip Hans Franses & Wouter Knecht, 2016. "The late 1970s bubble in Dutch collectible postage stamps," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1215-1228, June.
    6. Jonathan Donier & Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, 2015. "Why Do Markets Crash? Bitcoin Data Offers Unprecedented Insights," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-11, October.
    7. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    8. Philippe Jehiel, 2022. "Analogy-Based Expectation Equilibrium and Related Concepts:Theory, Applications, and Beyond," Working Papers halshs-03735680, HAL.
    9. Halim, Edward & Riyanto, Yohanes Eko & Roy, Nilanjan, 2016. "Price Dynamics and Consumption Smoothing in Experimental Asset Markets," MPRA Paper 71631, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Lange, Andreas & Ross, Johannes, 2024. "Internalizing match-dependent externalities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 356-378.
    12. Gunduz Caginalp & Vladimira Ilieva, 2006. "The dynamics of trader motivations in asset bubbles," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 008, University of Siena.
    13. Nuzzo, Simone & Morone, Andrea, 2017. "Asset markets in the lab: A literature review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 42-50.
    14. Brock, William A. & Hommes, Cars H. & Wagener, Florian O. O., 2005. "Evolutionary dynamics in markets with many trader types," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1-2), pages 7-42, February.
    15. Klarita Sadiraj & Arthur Schram, 2018. "Inside information in Ponzi schemes," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(1), pages 29-45, July.
    16. Cars Hommes & Anita Kopányi-Peuker & Joep Sonnemans, 2021. "Bubbles, crashes and information contagion in large-group asset market experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 414-433, June.
    17. Evans, George W. & Hommes, Cars & McGough, Bruce & Salle, Isabelle, 2022. "Are long-horizon expectations (de-)stabilizing? Theory and experiments," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 44-63.
    18. Tristan Roger & Wael Bousselmi & Patrick Roger & Marc Willinger, 2018. "The effect of price magnitude on analysts' forecasts: evidence from the lab," Working Papers hal-01954919, HAL.
    19. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner & Antoni Bosch-Domènech, 2018. "Cognitive bubbles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 132-153, March.
    20. Marco Angrisani & Marco Cipriani & Antonio Guarino, 2022. "Strategic Sophistication and Trading Profits: An Experiment with Professional Traders," Staff Reports 1044, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0037719. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.