No abstract

When recalling key definitions from class materials, college students are often overconfident in the quality of their responses. Even with commission errors, they often judge that their response is entirely or partially correct. To further understand this overconfidence, we investigated whether idea-unit judgements would reduce overconfidence (Experiments 1 and 2) and whether students inflated their scores because they believed that they knew answers but just responded incorrectly (Experiment 2). College students studied key-term definitions and later attempted to recall each definition when given the key term (e.g., What is the availability heuristic?). All students judged the quality of their recall, but some were given a full-definition standard to use, whereas other students first judged whether their response included each of the individual ideas within the corresponding correct answer. In Experiment 1, making these idea-unit judgements reduced overconfidence for commission errors. In Experiment 2, some students were given the correct definitions and graded other students' responses, and some students generated idea units themselves before judging their responses. Students were overconfident even when they graded other students' responses, and, as important, self-generated idea units for each definition also reduced overconfidence in commission errors. Thus, overconfidence appears to result from difficulties in evaluating the quality of recall responses, and such overconfidence can be reduced by using idea-unit judgements.

When recalling key term definitions from class materials, students may recall entirely incorrect definitions, yet will often claim that these commission errors are entirely correct; that is, they are overconfident in the quality of their recall responses. We investigated whether this overconfidence could be reduced by providing various standards to middle school students as they evaluated their recall responses. Students studied key term definitions, attempted to recall each one, and then were asked to score the quality of their recall. In Experiment 1, they evaluated their recall responses by rating each response as fully correct, partially correct, or incorrect. Most important, as they evaluated a particular response, it was presented either alone (i.e., without a standard) or with the correct definition present. Providing this full-definition standard reduced overconfidence in commission errors: Students assigned full or partial credit to 73% of their commission errors when they received no standard, whereas they assigned credit to only 44% of these errors when receiving the full-definition standard. In Experiment 2, a new standard was introduced: Idea units from each definition were presented, and students indicated whether each idea unit was in their response. After making these idea-unit judgments, the students then evaluated the quality of their entire response. Idea-unit standards further reduced overconfidence. Thus, although middle school students are overconfident in evaluating the quality of their recall responses, using standards substantially reduces this overconfidence and promises to improve the efficacy of their self-regulated learning.

People's judgments about how well they have learned and comprehended text materials can be important for effectively regulating learning, but only if those judgments are accurate. Over two decades of research examining judgments of text learning-or metacomprehension-has consistently demonstrated that people's judgment accuracy is quite poor. We review recent research that has shown some success in improving judgment accuracy and then argue that the most common method used to investigate metacomprehension accuracy may inadvertently constrain it. We describe a new method that sidesteps some problems of the older method and present evidence showing how people can achieve high levels of metacomprehension accuracy.

No abstract