UCLA UCLA Previously Published Works Title Context Fear Learning Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6xx2h90z ISBN 9781441914279 Authors Cushman, Jesse D Fanselow, Michael S Publication Date 2012 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_832 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California C then estimate after taking the exam how well he or she CAI did perform. If this student predicted that she would score an 85 but actually scored a 90, she is fairly ▶ Courseware Learning accurate but a bit underconfident. Alternatively, if a student predicts that he will score a 95 and actually scores a 60, he is grossly inaccurate and overconfident. In the former case, the student’s perception of perfor- CAIM - Computer-Aided mance corresponds well with actual performance, [Assisted] Instruction in Music and therefore, she is well calibrated. In the latter case, the student’s perception of performance corre- ▶ Technology in Music Instruction and Learning sponds poorly with actual performance and therefore is poorly calibrated. Although there are various methods of measuring calibration, all measures of calibration provide a Calibration quantitative assessment of the degree of discrepancy between perceived performance and actual perfor- 1 2 LINDA BOL ,DOUGLAS J. HACKER mance (Hacker et al. 2008). The various methods can 1Educational Foundations and Leadership, Old be grouped into two categories: difference scores and Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA calibration curves. Difference scores involve calculating 2Department of Educational Psychology, University of the difference between a person’s judged performance Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA and his or her actual performance. Judged perfor- mance can entail judgments made on a percentage of likelihood scale or confidence scale; they can be made Synonyms at a global level, in which a single judgment over mul- Absolute accuracy; Confidence in retrieval; Prospective tiple items is made or at the item level and averaged judgment; Retrospective judgment; Test postdiction; over multiple items; and judgments can be made Test prediction before (predictions or prospective judgments) or after (postdictions or retrospective judgments) performance. Definition Often, the absolute value of the difference between judg- Calibration is the degree to which a person’s percep- ment and performance is taken, in which case, values tion of performance corresponds with his or her actual closer to zero indicate greater calibration accuracy, performance (Keren 1991). The degree of correspon- with perfect calibration at zero. If the signed difference dence is determined by a person’s judgment of his is calculated, a bias score is produced. Negative values or her performance compared against an objectively are interpreted as underconfidence and positive values determined measure of that performance (Hacker as overconfidence. In our example, the first student et al. 2008). That judgment, which involves self- predicted an 85 and scored a 90, which means the evaluation, defines calibration as a metacognitive mon- difference score would be À5, indicating slight itoring process. To illustrate, consider the following underconfidence; and the second student predicted a example. Before taking an exam, a student might esti- 95 and scored a 60, putting the difference at + 35, mate how well he or she will perform on the exam, and indicating large overconfidence. N. Seel (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6, # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 496 C Calibration The other method used for measuring calibration is People may directly access their memories to evaluate the calibration curve or graph (Keren 1991). Actual the status of their knowledge, they may make evalua- performance is plotted on the y-axis, and judged perfor- tions based on inferences or heuristics about how much mance is plotted on the x-axis. Perfect calibration is they believe they know about a general domain, they represented by the 45 line, that is, judgments are exactly may make evaluations based on how self-efficacious equal to performance. Points that fall below the 45 line they feel about their performance on a particular task, are interpreted as overconfidence, and points that fall or all of these contributors may come into play. The above the line are interpreted as underconfidence. accuracy of the calibration judgment will be deter- Calibration curves are easily interpreted and provide mined by how well all those contributors to the judg- a graphical means of representing the degree of corre- ment are able to predict performance on a criterion spondence between perceptions of performance and task. In other words, calibration accuracy depends on actual performance. the extent to which memories are accessed, the infer- In the metacognitive literature, an important ences or heuristics are made, or the self-efficaciousness distinction is made between calibration and discrim- felt conform to the knowledge that is tested on the ination or resolution (Nelson 1996). Calibration is a criterion task. measure of absolute accuracy, and discrimination is Accurate calibration is an essential component of a measure of relative accuracy. Although both con- effective self-regulated learning. In an era of high stakes structs involve metacognitive monitoring, they repre- tests and accountability, the ability to perform well on sent different aspects of metacognitive monitoring and tests is essential. Students studying for a test need to be are measured in different ways. Whereas, calibration accurate in their monitoring of their knowledge reten- provides estimates of the degree to which a person’s tion if they hope to successfully control further study. perception of performance corresponds with his or her Students who are overconfident (i.e., a positive bias in actual performance, relative accuracy provides esti- calibration judgments) may have a false sense of how mates of the degree to which a person’s judgments well they have mastered the material. They may believe can predict the likelihood of correct performance of they are prepared when in fact they are at risk for one item relative to another (Nelson 1996). Calibration failure. Or students could intentionally inflate their provides estimates of overall memory retrieval, and overconfidence during test preparation as a self- relative accuracy provides estimates of whether a per- handicapping strategy, excusing or attributing their son can discriminate between what is known or not poor performance to external causes (Winne 2004). known. Studies that have compared absolute and rela- Underconfidence (i.e., a negative bias in calibration tive accuracy have found only small correlations between judgments) also can be detrimental to academic per- the two, suggesting that the two types of accuracy are formance because students may fail to disengage from tapping different aspects of metacognitive monitoring studying and misallocate study time if they assume the (e.g., Hacker et al. 2011). material is not yet mastered. When students demon- strate strong biases in their calibration judgments, they Theoretical Background may not take the remedial steps necessary to improve Calibration is a metacognitive monitoring process. or carefully evaluate their responses during or after an Monitoring provides information at the metacogntive exam (Hacker et al. 2008). “Learning will be inversely level about the status of one’s knowledge or strategies at proportional to the degree of calibration bias and a cognitive level (Nelson 1996). Based on this informa- proportional to calibration accuracy” (Winne 2004, tion, metacognitive control can be exerted to regulate p. 476). one’s knowledge or strategies. More specifically, after a person acquires and hopefully retains a specific chunk Important Scientific Research and of knowledge, he or she may evaluate the status of that Open Questions knowledge in memory, that is, to what degree does the There are some consistent findings in the literature person believe the knowledge has been retained. There related to calibration accuracy. Many studies have indi- may be many contributing variables to that evaluation. cated that calibration accuracy is linked to achievement Calibration C 497 level (e.g., Bol et al. 2005; Hacker et al. 2000). More insufficient for improving calibration accuracy. Reflec- specifically, higher-achieving students tend to be tion and instruction on monitoring and calibration more accurate but underconfident when compared to were found to be effective, particularly for higher- their lower-achieving counterparts who are less accu- achieving students. External rewards or incentives rate and overconfident. Calibration inaccuracy and were found to enhance postdiction accuracy among C overconfidence among the lower-achieving students lower-achieving students. More recently, group calibra- has been linked to theories of self-serving bias, attri- tion practice and the provision of guidelines have been bution theory, self-handicapping strategies, and ego shown to improve calibration accuracy and achieve- defense (Bol et al. 2005; Hacker et al. 2008). Lower- ment among high school students (Bol et al. 2009). achieving students seem to anchor their calibration Attempts to further identify consistent patterns judgments on optimistic yet inaccurate beliefs about of findings across calibration studies are compromised their own abilities rather than prior performance in an by the lack of common definitions and standard