Effects of informing learners about the dangers of making overconfident judgments of learning.

Effective self-regulated learning in settings in which students can decide what tasks to work on, requires accurate self-assessment (i.e., a judgment of own level of performance) as well as accurate task selection (i.e., choosing a subsequent task that fits the current level of performance). Because self-assessment accuracy is often low, task-selection accuracy suffers as well and, consequently, self-regulated learning can lead to suboptimal learning outcomes. Recent studies have shown that a training with video modeling examples enhanced self-assessment accuracy on problem-solving tasks, but the training was not equally effective for every student and, overall, there was room for further improvement in self-assessment accuracy. Therefore, we investigated whether training with video examples followed by feedback focused on selfassessment accuracy would improve subsequent self-assessment and task-selection accuracy in the absence of the feedback. Experiment 1 showed, contrary to our hypothesis, that selfassessment feedback led to less accurate future self-assessments. In Experiment 2, we provided students with feedback focused on self-assessment accuracy plus information on the correct answers, or feedback focused on self-assessment accuracy, plus the correct answers and the opportunity to contrast those with their own answers. Again, however, we found no beneficial effect of feedback on subsequent self-assessment accuracy. In sum, we found no evidence that feedback on self-assessment accuracy improves subsequent accuracy. Therefore, future research should address other ways improving accuracy, for instance by taking into account the cues upon which students base their self-assessments. Keywords Self-regulated learning. Problemsolving. Self-assessment. Task-selection. Feedback Students in secondary education are increasingly required to learn how to self-regulate their learning, because self-regulating your learning is considered imperative for learning in higher education and workplace settings (Bransford et al. 2000). Most models assume self-regulated learning to be a cyclical process proceeding "...from some kind of a preparatory or preliminary

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of self-assessment feedback on self-assessment and task-selection accuracy

Raaijmakers

Baars

Paas

et al. 2019

“…Accurate self-evaluations are critical for effective self-regulated learning (cf. Dunlosky & Rawson, 2012;Dunlosky & Thiede, 2013; see also Roelle et al, 2017), and this is true regardless of whether the learning is verbal or motoric. This metacognitive benefit of retrieval practice may be useful in learning physical trades or skills, multimedia learning (see Eitel, 2016) as well as more academic learning in general.…”

Section: Practical Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 90%

The underconfidence-with-practice effect in action memory: The contribution of retrieval practice to metacognitive monitoring

Kubik

Jemstedt

Eshratabadi

et al. 2022

When making memory predictions (judgments of learning; JOLs), people typically underestimate the recall gain across multiple study–test cycles, termed the underconfidence-with-practice (UWP) effect. This is usually studied with verbal materials, but little is known about how people repeatedly learn and monitor their own actions and to what extent retrieval practice via interim tests influence the progression of JOLs across cycles. Using action phrases (i.e., squeeze the lemon) as learning material, we demonstrated the UWP effect after both verbal and enactive encoding, although we did not get first-cycle overconfidence. As predicted, participants exhibited underconfidence in Cycles 2 and 3, as an error of calibrations. However, people’s resolution of JOLs (i.e., ability to discriminate recalled from unrecalled items) increased across study–test cycles. Importantly, JOLs for study–test (relative to study–study) items increased faster across cycles suggesting that repeated study–test practice not only produces underconfidence across cycles, but also reduces underconfidence relative to study–study practice. We discuss these findings in terms of current explanations of the underconfidence-with-practice effect.

“…In a study by Foster et al (2017), students remained overconfident in their global judgments even after multiple exam predictions. However, training studies focusing on local judgments indicate that students enhanced their judgment accuracy after being informed about their importance or after receiving feedback on their accuracy (Händel et al 2019;Roelle et al 2017). These differences in the stability of local and global judgments over time point to differences in cues that are available and used when providing performance judgments.…”

Section: Individual Differences In Metacognitive Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in local and global metacognitive judgments

Händel

Bruin

Dresel

2020

Extensive research has been conducted to understand how accurately students monitor their studying and performance via metacognitive judgments. Moreover, the bases of students' metacognitive judgments are of interest. While previous results are quite consistent regarding the importance of performance for the accuracy of metacognitive judgments, results regarding motivational and personality variables are rather heterogeneous. This paper reports on two studies that simultaneously examined the predictive power of several performance, motivational, and personality variables on metacognitive judgments. The studies investigated a set of judgments (local and global postdictions in Study 1 and global pre-and postdictions in Study 2) and accuracy scores (bias, sensitivity, and specificity) in two different settings. Individual differences in judgments and judgment accuracy were studied via hierarchical regression analyses. Study 1 with N = 245 undergraduate students identified performance and domain-specific self-concept as relevant predictors for judgments after test taking. This was consistently found for local and global judgments. Study 2 with N = 138 undergraduate students hence focused on domain-specific self-concept and extended results to predictions. Study 2 replicated results for global postdictions but not predictions. Specifically, before task processing, students' judgments relied mostly on domain-specific self-concept but not on test performance itself. The studies indicate that different judgments and measures of judgment accuracy are needed to obtain comprehensive insights into individual differences in metacognitive monitoring.