Accuracy of self-assessment among graduate students in mechanical engineering

Zvacek, Susan; Chouzal, Maria de Fátima; Restivo, Maria Teresa

doi:10.1109/icl.2015.7318192

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An over-efficacious student may be overly ambitious in choosing challenges and meet with failure as a result (Schunk & Pajares, 2004), or may alternatively underestimate the amount of effort or preparation that is required to successfully perform a task (Boekaerts 6 & Rozendaal, 2010;Hacker et al, 2000). Students may be less inclined to seek help and support (Zvacek, de Fátima Chouzal, & Restivo, 2015), and may exhibit complacency or carelessness (Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002;Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001). Most commentary regarding miscalibration relates to concerns about how students with illusorily positive views lack the necessary realistic foundation from which to approach their learning in educational settings (e.g., Moore & Healy, 2008;Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004).…”

Section: Miscalibration Of Academic Self-efficacy May Have Negative Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy

Talsma

Schüz

Norris

2019

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it has been consistently demonstrated that academic self-efficacy and performance are positively correlated in groups of students, little is known about whether individual students' academic self-efficacy levels align with their own performance abilities. At the same time, researchers contest whether self-efficacy should align with performance abilities to be of most benefit to students. In this study, we applied procedures used in the meta-cognitive calibration paradigm to investigate the alignment between academic self-efficacy and academic performance (i.e., self-efficacy calibration) in higher education. Undergraduate students (n=207) completed five self-efficacy questionnaires with regard to academic performance outcomes in one subject over a semester (two written assignments, two exams, and the subject overall). Five corresponding grades were also collected. We calculated two types of self-efficacy calibration scores: self-efficacy accuracy (the deviation between selfefficacy and performance) and self-efficacy bias (the signed difference [i.e., valence]; overand under-efficaciousness). Miscalibration of self-efficacy beliefs was prevalent, consistent with findings regarding meta-cognitive calibration. Under-efficaciousness was common at task level (for written assignments and exams), while over-efficaciousness was pronounced at domain level (for the subject overall). Self-efficacy exceeded performance for lowachievers, while it fell short of performance for high-achievers. A key finding was that selfefficacy bias predicted academic performance on similar subsequent tasks, with underefficacious students performing better than accurate or over-efficacious students. Findings suggest self-efficacy is not a self-fulfilling prophecy; instead, over-efficacious students may experience negative impacts on academic self-regulation and performance.

show abstract

Section: Miscalibration Of Academic Self-efficacy May Have Negative Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy

Talsma

Schüz

Norris

2019

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of Karnilowic's research indicated that, relative to teacher evaluation, low-achieving students were less accurate than high-achieving students; higher-achieving students tended to underestimate themselves while lower-achieving students tended to overestimate themselves [13]. The same conclusion about accuracy and tendency of SA among high-and low-performing students was also drawn in the study of Zvacek et al, but they also found mid-range performers were more accurate than high and low performers [14].…”

Section: Studies On Consistency Between Student Self-assessment and T...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a strong correlation between the two, but the correlation coefficient is as low as 0.180, which means that the correlation between CSE self-assessment levels and levels by teachers' evaluation is not statistically significant, and their direct correlation coefficient (0.379) is not accurate. In order to further explore the relation between students' speaking test performance and their self-assessment levels, the study classified students into 3 groups: low performers who scored at least one standard deviation below the mean, high performers who scored at least one standard deviation above the mean, and medium performers who fell between the other two [14]. It can be seen from Table V that high-performers tended to underestimate their speaking level, low-performers tended to overestimate their speaking level, and medium-performers slightly tended to underestimate their speaking level.…”

Section: Research Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Accuracy of Self-assessment of English Speaking Proficiency Levels by Engineering Students Based on Correlation and Sentiment Analysis

Qi,

Liu,

Zhu

et al. 2024

Advances in Intelligent Systems Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study investigated the accuracy of self-assessment (SA) and possible reasons for inaccuracies using correlation analysis and sentiment analysis based on machine learning. Results show that there was a moderate correlation between self-assessment and teacher assessment, and a general trend of underestimation in student self-assessment, particularly for high-performing and medium-performing students. Results also show that students' lack of confidence in English language learning, confusion about their own speaking abilities, and lack of a clear understanding of the rating scale are likely to be the reasons for underestimation. Though the accuracy of self-assessment was not validated in this study, it could be argued that SA can still be used as a formative assessment tool to trigger active learning and reflection on own abilities and improve assessment literacy and academic performance through using relevant rating scales or standards.

show abstract

“…The literature pointed out that students can acquire greater confidence by checking the answers to their work. Self-check is another way of confirming whether a student's experimental result is correct [14][15][16]. It can also find out problems in the experiment and improve learning initiative [17,18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect analysis of the teaching method of mutual result correction between students in an experiment of power electronics course

Zhao

2021

IET Circuits, Devices & Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to deepen students' understanding of experimental content and improve the accuracy of experimental results based on improving students' learning initiative, in this study, a teaching method is proposed that lets students check and correct experimental results among themselves after doing experiments. Teachers guide students in experiments but do not check and correct experimental results. At the end of the experiments, students check each other and correct the results of the experiments from the perspective of the teachers. When the experimental results are correct, the experiment ends. If problems are found, the correct experimental results can be obtained by modifying or redoing the experiment. In this study, the sinusoidal pulse width modulation inverter circuit experiment in power electronics course is taken as an example for practical teaching research. There are two classes in this study: one that applies the method and the other that does not. According to the statistics and analysis of the correct rate of experimental results and the answers to thinking questions, students who checked or corrected each other deepened their understanding of the experimental content when both groups did the experiments correctly. When the experimental results of the two groups are different, students can learn from each other, discuss with each other, redo the experiment, and correct wrong results so as to improve the accuracy of the experimental results and the correct answer rate of thinking questions. Through the questionnaire survey, the method proposed in this study enables students to correct the experimental results from the perspective of teachers, thus improving students' awareness of mutual learning and active learning. It can improve the experimental effect. K E Y W O R D S educational courses, power electronics, power engineering educationThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Accuracy of self-assessment among graduate students in mechanical engineering

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy

Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy

Investigating Accuracy of Self-assessment of English Speaking Proficiency Levels by Engineering Students Based on Correlation and Sentiment Analysis

Effect analysis of the teaching method of mutual result correction between students in an experiment of power electronics course

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Accuracy of self-assessment among graduate students in mechanical engineering

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy

Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy

Investigating Accuracy of Self-assessment of English Speaking Proficiency Levels by Engineering Students Based on Correlation and Sentiment Analysis

Effect analysis of the teaching method of mutual result correction between students in an experiment of power electronics course

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy

Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy