It is worth googling meta-cognition for research on people's knowledge about their own cognition. Janet Metcalfe has done excellent research applying meta-cognition research to education.

I doubt, that general measures are available or even possible. These topics are highly cultural dependent, even between the federal states in Germany and the topics are very broad. Maybe, it would be even easier to address crytalized intelligence (gc) and use general knowledge tests e.g. from the Wechsler series (WISC-IV or WAIS-IV; they include according questions) or to construct a test on your own. Maybe it would be possible to use a vocabulary test like the PPVT4 as well, as vocabulary is the best indicater for g(c).

Can you define subjective and objective geography knowledge for readers. I am interested in how you differentiate these. 

Dear Daniel,

In a nutshell, subjective knowledge is valid only for an individual, whereas objective knowledge is valid for everybody. Subjective knowledge can be described as one's own estimation about one's knowledge of certain topic, whereas objective knowledge is the definite knowledge about a certain topic, which can be tested through (school) exams and other forms of tests.

With regard to Geography, both domains of knowledge could/should be tested differently:

subj. knowl.: "I am very familiar with the topic of climate change." / "I feel very confident when working with a world map."

objec. knowl.: "The melting of the icecaps has slowed down by 5% over the past decade." (true/false) / "Name five countries that border Pakistan."

I am looking for a general measure for subjective knowledge, which, as Wolfgang has pointed out, may be too context-specific to exist on a general level.

Studies carried out at our department have shown that there is not necessarily a positive correlation between the two. For example, If you cannot reliably estimate how little you actually know about a certain topic  (= high subjective knowledge), you would at all probability fail to get a high score when your objective knowledge is tested. --> negative correlation.

I hope that makes sense to you. Please, feel free to add anything you like or comment on my explanation.

Kind regards

Marcel

It is worth googling meta-cognition for research on people's knowledge about their own cognition. Janet Metcalfe has done excellent research applying meta-cognition research to education.

Marcel, I would respectfully challenge the definitions you give, at least with the examples you offer, and suggest that neither is knowledge. 'I feel etc.' suggests an emotion or state of mind. (I might feel I know a lot about something, attend a conference of specialists, and then feel quite ignorant. What I had could not have been knowledge in any meaningful sense.) And the rate of ice-cap melting has nothing to do with what you or I know, unless it happens to be something you have determined to be so (I haven't). You seem to suggest that it's objective reality -- that it's there, whether anyone knows it or not. That may be. But it's only knowledge for the people who know it (by testing, investigation etc.). If you tell it to me, I know  that you told me, but not that it is the reality of ice-caps.

I would suggest that all knowledge (which unlike information requires a knower: for knowledge is what a knower knows) is subjective, but that 'subjective' does not mean 'valid for me only', at least not in a radical sense. We all must figure things out, interacting with reality around us (assuming reality around us) with the way we're wired and what we bring to the table. Although information or data can be transferred, from one storage device to another, knowledge cannot be transferred (in spite of common lingo in universities).

I would suggest a more traditional distinction between quantitative (computational and deductive)  and qualitative (inductive, experienced, weighed, judged) knowledge. Many important things can be judged quantitatively, of course: in demographics, frequentist probability (chances of X happening among known variables, as drawing an ace from a deck of cards), epidemiological and demographic and actuarial questions, etc. Many Olympic sporting events are judged quantitatively (track and field, swimming). But many of our most important questions in life require qualitative judgements (best place to live, best job, best life partner, best computer or car or jeans or wine). Some Olympic events are judged this way (all those needing judges: gymnastics, skating, boxing, etc.).

Although university administrations are loath to accept this , there is no way to convert one kind of judgement into another (though of course one can say that N number of people judge -- qualitatively -- this course to be worthwhile or this city the most liveable. Doesn't mean that it is by any computational measure, and next year it might not be, even though it's basically the same. But what do you want -- certainty?)

Does that help? NB: I am a historian (of the Graeco-Roman world).

Dear Steve,

your criticism is much appreciated. Unfortunately, I could not get hold of the items my departmen has been using to measure subjective and objective Political knowledge, so I made these up. The definition, however, should be similar to the one we apply.

I will process your comment in depth after my conference and come back to you!

Dear Steve,

I have had the time to go through your comment again, and I believe it all may come down to a different approach not to what knowledge itself is, but how we utilise it for the porposes of our research. Didactical research as we conduct it focusses on the latter one. The difference may therefore lie within the disciplines we work in.

What we call subjective knowledge is in fact a belief, or, as you put it a „state of mind“.

- I can explain the structure of the European Parliament to my classmates.

What we call objective knowledge is facts, or, as you put it „objective reality“.

- Who is the current president of the European Parliament?

Even if I am unaware of the answer, there is but one. Generelly speaking, there is no dispute about the answers to our objective knowledge questions. Granted, knowledge requieres a knower, but what we intend to investigate is the relationship between peoples‘ beliefs, their states of mind, as it were, and factual knowledge.

Dear Marcel:

'Factual' knowledge is necessarily part of someone's (or some group's) state of mind and belief system.

Conceptual borders, like most classes of borders, tend to be blurry.

I find it hard to discuss abstract concepts. What is it that are you trying to get at with your research project?

Warm regards,

David

Dear David

Thank you for your response. Let me explain briefly the outline of my research project:

 In German comprehensive schools, Social Science teachers are required to teach a aubject called Gesellschaftslehre (Politics, History and Geography combined). However, we do not yet know how self-efficacious they feels about it since now instrument has been developed so far. Our focus lies on self-efficacy with regard to Pedagocical Content Knowledge (PCK), an integral part of the overall teaching competence according to Shulman (1986, 1987). E.g. („I am convinced I can assess students‘ competence from other than my own curriculum.“)

 Knowledge – objective and subjective – is an additional dimension of said overall competence that we would like to measure. In our understanding, objective knowledge is not to be confused with factual knowledge, as it may very well be conceptual. Subjective knowledge on the other hand can be described as one's own estimation about one's knowledge of certain topic (see examples above).

 I hope this sheds some light onto my project. If you have any more questins, feel free to ask them. I will add in outline of the project in English asap.

Thanks

Marcel