Differences Between Functional and Subjective Overconfidence in Postdiction Judgments of Test Performance

Shake, Matthew; Shulley, Leah J.

doi:10.25115/ejrep.33.14005

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a consequence, the difference between groups of students and how well they can judge their performance may disappear. Yet, there are a few studies that examined the unskilled-and-unaware effect with postdictions as well, and they still found an unskilled-and-unaware effect (Hacker et al 2000;Shake and Shulley 2014). Furthermore, even when cues are available, low performing students usually have more difficulty using valid cues when judging their performance (Gutierrez de Blume et al 2017; Thiede et al 2010).…”

Section: Calibration Accuracy and Sojs Among University Studentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive awareness as measured by second-order judgements among university and secondary school students

Nederhand

Tabbers

Bruin

et al. 2020

Metacognition Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When compared to high performers, low performers generally have more difficulty to accurately estimate their own performance. This has been explained by low performers being both unskilled and unaware about their performance. However, Miller and Geraci Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 502-506, (2011) found that low performing university students also assigned less confidence to their estimates (i.e., second-order judgments, SOJs), indicating some metacognitive awareness of their poor calibration. The current study examined whether the relationship between calibration accuracy and confidence in performance estimates is more general, and exists irrespective of performance level, not only for university students but also for secondary school students. We asked university students and secondary school students to estimate their exam grade after taking their exam, and to provide a second-order judgement). The results showed that for university students, poor calibration accuracy was indeed accompanied by low confidence scores, independent from performance level. For secondary school students however, calibration accuracy was unrelated to confidence scores, suggesting a less developed metacognitive awareness.

show abstract

Section: Calibration Accuracy and Sojs Among University Studentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive awareness as measured by second-order judgements among university and secondary school students

Nederhand

Tabbers

Bruin

et al. 2020

Metacognition Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Unskilled and unaware? Differences in metacognitive awareness between high and low-ability students in STEM

Morphew

2024

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMetacognition, or the ability to monitor and control one's cognitive processes, is critical for learning in self-regulated contexts, particularly in introductory STEM courses. The ability to accurately make predictions about one's ability and performance can determine the effectiveness in which students effectively prepare for exams and employ good study strategies. The Dunning-Kruger pattern, where low-performing individuals are more overconfident and less accurate at the ability to predict their performance than high-performing individuals, is robustly found in studies examining metacognitive monitoring. The extent to which the Dunning-Kruger pattern can be explained by the lack of metacognitive awareness is not yet established in the literature. In other words, it is unclear from prior work whether low-performing students are “unskilled and unaware” or simply “unskilled but subjectively aware.” In addition, arguments about whether this pattern is a psychological phenomenon or a statistical artifact of the measurement of metacognition can be found in the literature.MethodsStudents enrolled in three different physics courses made predictions about their exam scores immediately before and after taking each of the three exams in the course. Student predictions were compared to their exam scores to exam metacognitive accuracy. A new method for examining the cause of the Dunning-Kruger effect was tested by examining how students adjust their metacognitive predictions after taking exams.ResultsIn all contexts low-performing students were more overconfident and less accurate at making metacognitive predictions than high-performing students. In addition, these students were less able to efficiently adjust their metacognitive predictions after taking an exam.DiscussionThe results of the study provide evidence for the Dunning-Kruger effect being a psychological phenomenon. In addition, findings from this study align with the position that the skills needed to accurately monitor one's performance are the same as those needed for accurate performance in the first place, thus providing support for the “unskilled and unaware” hypothesis.

show abstract

Juicios metacognitivos de dominio específico

Álvarez Ríos

2024

Educ. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Los juicios metacognitivos han sido vinculados epistemológicamente con creencias del sujeto en relación con su origen en la experiencia, el conocimiento y la fluidez del aprendizaje. Con otra mirada, la didáctica puede estudiar juicios de dominio específico acordes con las particularidades de cada una de las ciencias. Objetivo: explorar los juicios metacognitivos mediante el análisis del contenido en discursos de estudiantes de medicina de una universidad pública en Colombia. Métodos: se utilizó una metodología cualitativa descriptiva que exploró los juicios metacognitivos en simulaciones clínicas de tareas que implicaron razonamiento clínico. Discusión de resultados: los resultados arrojan dos juicios metacognitivos propios del razonamiento clínico: juicios de recapitulación y juicios con hipótesis, además de los juicios basados en creencias ontológicas. Conclusión: el estudio permite delinear una taxonomía de juicios metacognitivos de dominio específico que incluyen creencias epistémicas y ontológicas.

show abstract

Differences Between Functional and Subjective Overconfidence in Postdiction Judgments of Test Performance

Abstract: Introduction. Recent research has shown that students tend be overconfident when judging

Cited by 3 publications

References 21 publications

Metacognitive awareness as measured by second-order judgements among university and secondary school students

Metacognitive awareness as measured by second-order judgements among university and secondary school students

Unskilled and unaware? Differences in metacognitive awareness between high and low-ability students in STEM

Juicios metacognitivos de dominio específico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About