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

Abstract

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.

Grade prediction in the middle east: a post-pandemic case study of the optimism bias

“…However, the steepest decline was yielded by deficient performers. These findings, which replicate those of Pilotti et al (2021 , 2023c) , suggest that learners’ metacognitive experiences before and after the exam are different. Before the exam, the key sources of estimates are study activities and scant information about the format and content of the exam gathered from the instructor and past students.…”

“… Miller and Geraci (2011a) also found that low-performing students make grade predictions with less confidence than high-performing students. Svanum and Bigatti (2006) and Pilotti et al (2023c) argued that for students whose performance is less than desirable, optimistic predictions may be the expression of wishful thinking.…”

“…Gonzalez et al argued that this habit shift explains the findings of students’ enhanced academic performance during the pandemic relative to the pre-pandemic period ( Gonzalez et al, 2020 ; Iglesias-Pradas et al, 2021 ). Yet, evidence exists that this habit shift has been challenged by a return to campus life after the pandemic ( Pilotti et al, 2023c ). Assuming that study habit reversals to the pre-pandemic period have occurred, it is unclear whether they may be accompanied by changes in the accuracy and confidence of performance estimations.…”