A Close-Up on a Predictive Moment: Illusion of Knowing or Lack of Confidence in Self-Assessment?

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.

Battling Unawareness of One’s Test Performance: Do Practice, Self-Efficacy, and Emotional Intelligence Matter?

“…Second, recent evidence has questioned the conventional interpretation of the effect. For instance, although students from different parts of the world tend to conform to the pattern of estimations that defines the Dunning–Kruger effect, poor performers may also be less confident in their test predictions than higher performers [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Poor performers may also exhibit less self-efficacy (i.e., overall confidence in their abilities) than students performing well [ 11 ].…”

“…For instance, although students from different parts of the world tend to conform to the pattern of estimations that defines the Dunning–Kruger effect, poor performers may also be less confident in their test predictions than higher performers [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Poor performers may also exhibit less self-efficacy (i.e., overall confidence in their abilities) than students performing well [ 11 ]. Taken together, these findings have been interpreted as suggesting that poor performers face a serious dilemma when thinking about their performance on a test.…”

Linking Female College Students’ Causal Attribution Habits, Cultural Orientation, and Self-Efficacy: A Study on Cross-National Differences

“…To wit, if self-efficacy is conceptualized as a motivational trait [42] linked to learners' engagement/motivation [43,44], it is expected to translate into actions (e.g., completion rates, dedication, commitment, goal-setting, etc.) conducive to academic accomplishments in specific tasks as well as overall [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]. However, evidence also exists either of an inverse relationship between self-efficacy and educational success (when self-efficacy becomes over-confidence) or of no relationship at all [53][54][55].…”

Is Academic Success Just a Matter of Showing Up? A Study of the Contribution of Individual Differences and Attendance to Performance

“…Yet, in the extant literature, evidence of a link between self-efficacy and performance, prediction accuracy, or subjective confidence is mixed. For instance, Al Kuhayli et al (2019) found no evidence of a link between self-efficacy and either class performance or metacognition, whereas Pilotti et al (2020) reported low self-efficacy to be associated with poor performance.…”