In the present study, the tendency to overestimate performance (illusion of knowing) was examined in college students whose educational past experiences had emphasized verbatim learning. Female students enrolled in core curriculum classes were sampled. Classes taught by the same instructor were randomly assigned to a self-assessment practice condition, where students predicted their test and class performance and were asked to reflect on discrepancies between predictions and actual performance, or to a control condition. At the end of the semester, irrespective of condition, as performance declined on the final test, predictions of final test grades became more inflated, but less confident, indicating that students were aware of their own deficiencies. Overall, students in the practice condition displayed not only greater prediction accuracy, but also greater final test performance than students in the control condition. Practice, however, benefited the most self-assessment accuracy of students whose final test grades were just above the passing grade. Although the responses to self-assessment practice of students with a teacher-centered educational past were largely similar to the responses of students from Western countries reported in the extant literature, differences in impact and meaning could be inferred.

No abstract

Prediction allows learners to adjust behavior toward the future by exploiting information pertaining to the present and the past. Through a field study, we examined whether poor performing students are truly unaware of not knowing their deficiencies as the illusion of knowing (IoK) phenomenon implies. College students’ ability to predict their final test performance was surveyed as a function of experience (before and after the test), performance level, and self-efficacy. In this study, high performers’ prospective and retrospective predictions were more accurate and confident than those of poor performers. Although poor performers overestimated their grades (as predicted by IoK), they were less confident in their predictions. Furthermore, both their prediction accuracy and confidence benefited from the experience of taking the test. These findings, coupled with the lower self-efficacy of poor performers, suggest that prediction errors involving inflated estimations reflect the wishful thinking exhibited by students who are aware of their lack of competence but may have little confidence in their abilities.

General Self-Efficacy (GSE) scales are used to measure the extent to which individuals possess a general sense of mastery that is not tied to a specific situation or behavior. The present field experiment assesses whether the language in which a GSE scale is written can prime cultural mind-sets and, thus, shape participants’ appraisal of their own self-efficacy. Arabic–English bilingual speakers completed the New General Self-Efficacy (NGSE) scale and a questionnaire to measure their emotional reactions to each of the statements of the scale. Across all participants, Arabic yielded lower self-efficacy appraisals than English. Furthermore, in Arabic, both males’ and females’ reports of positive emotions decreased as self-efficacy estimates increased, whereas in English, females’ reports of positive emotions rose with self-efficacy estimates. These results support the notion that self-appraisal of mastery can be modulated by one’s cultural mind-set.

The “Dunning–Kruger effect” refers to the tendency of poor performers to overestimate test outcomes. Although a widespread phenomenon, questions exist regarding its source and sensitivity to countermeasures. The present field study aimed to (a) examine whether practice with tests used in previous classes can enhance students’ ability to estimate test outcomes, (b) determine the main source of the effect (i.e., is it unawareness of one’s readiness or wishful thinking?), and (c) assess the extent to which particular individual differences can be used as predictors of test performance. In this study, participants practiced with old tests and then completed the final exam. Before and after the exam, they predicted their grades and indicated their subjective confidence in the predictions made. Furthermore, participants’ emotional intelligence and self-efficacy about their academic abilities were surveyed. Results suggested that poor performers were not unaware of their test preparation, but rather engaged in wishful thinking. In fact, although they overestimated their test grades, their estimates not only improved after completing the final test but also were regarded with little confidence. Overall, estimation bias was a good predictor of students’ final test performance, whereas subjective confidence and emotional intelligence only weakly predicted such performance. Thus, if proactive interventions are to be developed for at-risk students, performance-estimation tasks may offer valuable information regarding such students’ future performance in a course much more than emotional intelligence and self-efficacy measures.