This article was downloaded by: University of Michigan On: 01 Oct 2017 Access details: subscription number 11531 Publisher:Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Handbook of Metamemory and Memory

John Dunlosky, Robert A. Bjork

Metacognition in Education

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 Douglas J. Hacker, Linda Bol, Keener Matt C. Published online on: 28 May 2008

How to cite :- Douglas J. Hacker, Linda Bol, Keener Matt C.. 28 May 2008 ,Metacognition in Education from: Handbook of Metamemory and Memory Routledge. Accessed on: 01 Oct 2017 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203805503.ch22

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms.

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 ment to go outside the laboratory into more naturalistic environmental situations to to situations environmental naturalistic more into laboratory the outside go to ment situation. the environmental theis classroom and category of organism; cific spe- the —constitute tograduate —elementary students behavior; to-be-explained the is for Calibration atarget research: identifying in ter, we guidelines follow their We have resonated strongly with Nelson and Narens’s arguments, and in this chap- chapter, (1984), provided view: by Sarris Parducci and this encapsulates aptly Aquotation Nelson Narens situations. and the from environmental valid ecologically aneed for work, togo researchers also more outside into is tory laboratory there the acontinued is there need for laboratory, to the labora- although that restricted and have been memory typically and of area learning for the in research targets that argue to on went They examination. an taking and for studying as situation environmental the and as college students, mnemonicas behavior, category of organism specific the behavior the to-be-explained identifying by specifically for of atarget research” “lack situation” this (p. kind environmental of addressed they work,their own cific 3). In spe- a in organism of category specific a of behavior to-be-explained some of terms in present chapter. the inspiration forthe was first the shortcomings, three these processing).tive Of (i.e., cogni- researchers’ self-directed attempts to control participants’ in variations control approach,and nonreflective-organism experimental via (3) short-circuiting due, was progress cumulative of (1) shortcomings: lack tothree part, forin lackof (2) atarget research, this overemphasis on a that speculated Narens and Nelson century. lack of “cumulative” progress in research on learning and memory over waythethe but intendedforreasons the reflection toencourage on was lasta disparaging half in asked authorednot was question 1994. toachapter Their they in title the tion in ques- this asked Louis Narens and Thomas “Why metacognition?” investigate Nelson Introduction Douglas Hacker, J. Keener Linda C. Bol, and Matt A Focus on Calibration Education: in Metacognition Our plan for this chapter is first to expand on Nelson and Narens’s (1994) argu- Nelson Narens and (1994) for atarget that “should research explained bedefined tional areas of psychological research in practical directions. (pp. 10–11) directions. practical in research ofpsychological areas tional tradi- even pushing forces strong be to seem do …There applications. forpractical concern apparent without problems psychological tostudy continue …Scientists morepractical. ogy psychol- make to concern the from separated be cannot … validity ecological for desire The 429 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 have an impact on one’s impact have tomonitor an control and learning. ability of can which all motivation for breadth, and depth, learning, the but also learning differences betweenlaboratoryandof classroom type contextsthenot entail only it is often the case that barely an hour passesclassroom beconsiderably context can longer alaboratory in which context, in than between learning and testing. In a in testing and sum, learning between long-term interval consequence the for And, them. is going to contribute to their overall grade for more a on well that motivatedaclassroom course test toperform likely are students general, than on a test that has little 2002). &McGuire, Moreover, (Maki materials in manipulating by physically cases answer, some question and in and group discussions, in participation reading, ture, multiplebut tolec- beencoded including ways, in not can limited Information tories. complex massively are tolabora- comparison in Conditions for learning to manage. Narens, 1994). or (Nelson comprehension & of time, texts study or expository of narrative short allocation retrieval, in (JOLs), confidence learning of (EOL), judgments learning of knowing (FOK), of including ease most feeling often of learning, range to alimited rigor been applied has experimental this area theof metacognition, In identified. for causes or thought bethat behavior have researchers can been morethe certain beachieved control towhich extent greater conditions, the can and experimental and procedures, participants, tocontrol is goal materials, the context, alaboratory In (Lundeberg &Fox, may beunwarranted 1991;cases 2004). Winne, 2003; McCormick, some in and risky is classroom practices resemblance toactual havedures that little environments. learning improving in interested practitioners ers and research- to helpful quite be can and contexts” “naturalistic to applicable more work their make to wishing psychologists for concern major a be should implications tional educa- Providing practice. this stop should researchers memory and learning that We research. for future not are advocating acall intended as are only that others still and practical, productively not are that likely applied others contexts, toeducational and implications, some educational mayoften of which provide be suggested readily sections Discussion contexts. toeducational results their togeneralize is memory and A commonof researchers learning who practice conduct in studies laboratory Laboratories versus Classrooms students classroom in contexts. of calibration and measured, is how education calibration in tocalibration, cognition mentioned, on as we focus meta- our narrow Last, contexts. educational in interact potentially control and monitoring that processes metacognitive the of describing of Nelson Narens’soverview and (1990) model for of purpose metacognition the we Second, ofpresent metacognition. abrief notionscharacter our general of the on have impact therefore and an can of studies results on the have impact an can memory.isexamined and in which metacognition Theenvironment learning study 430 In naturalistic contexts, especially classroom contexts, such controls are difficult classroomsuch controls contexts, difficult are especially contexts, naturalistic In that have content used fromand studies However, proce- findings generalizing Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 metacognitive level about the status of knowledge or strategies at a cognitive level; at acognitive of level knowledge or about strategies status metacognitive the of thought (Broadbent, 1977). Through monitoring, control and monitoring of as beviewed a lowercan level level ofby thought ahigher people obtain information at the meta-level object-level the from tothe and monitoring) (i.e., control). Metacognition the object-levelfrom flowthe information tothe meta-level of to corresponding (i.e., object-level; of the (3) and knowledgeortive understanding processes two are there model object-level, of the source of metacogni- the adynamic is which level contains object-level an into (i.e., ameta-level cognition) and (i.e., metacognition); (2) meta- the three principles: frameworkis based on concept. Their (1)are split processes Mental components of adescription as the well comprise served that processes this has and Nelson Narens (1990) and for framework that metacognition proposed atheoretical Metacognitive Monitoring and Control classroom.to the laboratory one investigated, fromthe should becautiousoughly about generalizing laboratory. the controlledto beintroduced more and factorsare in Until thor- these need will setting) social a in make learners that comparisons social the or motivation, classroom contexts (e.g.,in breadth of and knowledge, input depth from colearners, judgments metacognitive affect known to are that do, factors likely they and differ, fromone would other not tothe becontroversial. However,eralizing conditions if conditionsthe alaboratory context in approximate conditions classrooms, gen- in If judgments conditions made. are those the which under and of strategies use study and selection the judgments concerning contribute that tometacognitive factors the of understanding occur, tobeabetter needs there can Before such generalization berisky. at times toclassroom of contexts can metacognition studies from laboratory findings generalizing that & Fox, 1991), argument toour point directly results the receive” (p. 97). view, to of test you expect type specificity would be: theStudy encoding for to the akin simplest advice, Foxclassroom, the Lundeberg and the “In recommended that, meta-analysis, of their aresult As found. opposite was result exact the room contexts, were that studies conducted conducted studies laboratory class- In contexts. in in Fox’sand (1991) buttrue, for only was effect showed expectancy test results the that an essay test regardless beentoprepare for has strategy recommended skill the study then, choice Since test. of the actual toreceive amultiple- who students amultiple-choice wereand expecting than test type of test test essay on an both better performed test essay toreceive an who were a expecting person is to receive.firstreported byMeyer was effect test expectancy (1934), studentswhothat found Lundeberg the aform called of metacognition investigating studies on some issues. of the light may However, shed that additional contexts. illustration toprovide us an allow betweenlaboratory classroom and ability contexts or betweendifferent classroom

In addition to the practical advice that can be garnered from this study (Lundeberg study this from begarnered can that advice practical tothe addition In FoxLundeberg and (1991) classroom of and laboratory conducted ameta-analysis generaliz- surrounding issues of the analysis extensive an not does Space permit Metacognition in Education test expectancy effect expectancy test . The 431 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 tional to calibration accuracy” (p. 476). accuracy” tocalibration tional propor- biasand of degree beinversely calibration tothe proportional will “Learning (2004): by Winne summarized beensuccinctly has control relation in tocalibration processes. states and cognitive late those toregu- control toexert used be must monitoring such from obtained information the and processes, and states ongoing monitorlevel cognitive need toaccurately their metacognitive at students the tobecome learners, self-regulated At aminimum, tice. for ground toprac- classroom application contextthe the provides of fertile theory on entirely research, laboratory almost based is framework theoretical this Although and memory. control and people ing their as learning processes attempt toinfluence monitor- between exists that interplay dynamic the into insights important provides task. sufficient the morefor than comprehension their comprehending fact when in text the mayhopes be of further the in tocontinue reading precious time study tomisallocate students cause could underconfidence strong comprehension greater hand, other Onthe attain text. of the appropriate for totrigger to students control fail could necessary processes reading &Zabrucky, 1998). (Lin of text ing overconfidence strong one Onthe hand, during their learn- regulate sway toineffectively could students reading during calibration consider how illustration, inaccurate afurther As bration contexts. educational in iors (Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, this example also highlights the importance have words, other In beself-regulatorsthey behav- people beenachieved. of can their of cali- judge and when necessary, if control plans the further plans, of progress their the control monitor deployment the plans, goals, of those develop their toachieve plans for learning, goals own their establish knowledgeor monitor skills, iors, their can monitoring in underconfident. were they slightly that knowledgebut also their accurate fairly were students the that only not indicates which correct, 95% the actual andthe 90% judged between difference the is case this in Calibration out tobe95% turns correct. purposes for which illustrative performance, actual their possible is acceptable. correct Thatthen and 90% comparedjudgmentis 90% to of of about monitor judge agrade and know that what they again will they time which morefor at several hours, control studying their over further exert can They grade. for toget adecent necessary is two monitor judge more and know that what studying they or hour an for studying while nomenclature, teston chemical may students continuously upcoming chemistry an instance, For examination. an as such task, rion tosome comparison crite- knowledgein of extent that the judging and topic or skill aperson’s entails calibration of monitoring in what he or she about knows aspecified reflected process psychological underlying the accuracy, calibration to contributors Yates,& Zabrucky, 1998; 2004; significant Winne, 1990). several are there Although (Keren, 1991; performance or correspond her oftohis actual performance ings Lin bration. In brief, brief, In bration. level (Hacker, cognitive at the thought level 1998, toregulate 2004). metacognitive the at knowledgeor understanding metacognitive their control, use peoplethrough can 432 In summary, Nelson Narens’s summary, and In (1990) frameworkof metacognition theoretical and thoughts behav-how people,agents illustrates their as own example of This To illustrate the dynamic interplay between monitoring and control, and monitoring consider between interplay cali- To dynamic the illustrate is a measure of the degree to which aperson’s towhich degree of ameasure calibration is the judged rat- Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt The importance of accurate monitoring and monitoring accurate of importance The Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 of learning. A of learning. stages the where and within judgments postdiction figure fit we believe prediction this of study). termination We oftime, study by (e.g., monitoring have allocation addedto control informed are the and that of processes knowing), feeling ments of learning, (e.g., make judg- aperson judgments monitoring can that various the retrieval), and (i.e.,Nelson 1994) &Narens, acquisition, retention, of learning stages shows three judgments. Figure prediction judgments postdiction between and 1 (adapted from distinction the clarifies judgments monitoring that retrospective judgments and &Zabrucky, 1998).(Lin called commonly are followMonitoring judgments that performance testing. after occur can mastered been has material which judgmenttive concerning student’s the addition, In beenmastered. subjec- has to-be-tested material of the 90% that aprediction make and before monitor testing or hera student his learning can control, and monitoring on metacognitive section the in given example the in As volume). this of &Diaz, judgment measures other accuracy, seeBenjamin please for 2004; (Winne, knowledgeor of skill that measure determined objectively to an judgments compared are those and have they learned, about what knowledge or skill 1982; Nietfeld, judgments Cao, &Osborne, 2006). words, other make In learners (Keren, 1991; performance or her his actual Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, & with Phillips, aperson’s towhich degree the is Calibration perception corresponds of performance Calibration?What Is research. for of future directions adiscussion end with in classroom contexts. of findings We patterns describe and contexts, educational in memory and tolearning of calibration importance the discuss moremeasured, fully it which ways is in various the low, describe of description calibration, we afuller give fol- that sections of the In metacognition. other types educational contexts than in has that of metacognition atype is which At this point, we wouldA Focus on Calibration like to focus our attention more squarely on calibration, retention. overlap which Postdictions, “confidence to somein with retrieved degree toacquisition and predictions may people convince need toreturn they pessimistic or skill; have material they the mastered believing intoretrieval, lead people directly controlinform (Nelson processes 1990, &Narens, 1994). predictions may Optimistic to used be can judgments Both retrieval). after monitors or her his knowledgeor skill judgment monitoring (i.e., aretrospective of aperson be thought as judgment can person’s Apostdiction or memory of task. some or her his learning mastery in belief a judgment of the reflects magnitude 1990) &Hultsch, Dixon, the that in (Hertzog, or skill). In some respects, a prediction knowledge of the a person before monitors or retrieval her his knowledge or skill judgment is a type of self-efficacy judgments thoughtmonitoring as prospective of (i.e., be can Therefore, predictions judgment a retentionsition and but prior toretrieval; Nelson Narens (1994) and monitoring prospective between adistinction drew prediction judgment Metacognition in Education is a monitoring judgment that comes after acqui- after comes that judgment monitoring a is been investigated perhapsbeen investigated more extensively postdiction judgment postdiction follows retrieval. follows retrieval. postdictions 433

Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 a person can discriminate between what is known or whereas not absolute what known between is known, discriminate a person can (Yates,occur 1990). provides of words, other ameasure whether In relative accuracy notitem relative (Nelson, toanother or 1984, 1996) will event or atarget whether will of one aperson’swhich of performance correct likelihood predictthe judgments can may not know. however, what between aperson do may not they or provide good discrimination retrieval; memory of overall estimates judgments provide important Calibration aperson’sbetween performance. judged or her his level actual and of performance different metacognitive processes. metacognitive different tap of accuracy types two the that relation suggesting two, found the was between (2005), cor- were absolute which in compared, relative no and significant accuracy ways different (Nelson,Wheeler, Shields, 1996).Zacchilli and In astudy by Maki, in very are andmeasured monitoring of metacognitive aspects different very two theyrepresent although are often confused, of accuracy types two accuracy.tive The absolute referredas are rela- which toas resolution accuracy, and or discrimination, retentionand task. acquisition their maynext employback, learners control different during processes 1990). 1998; McCormick, 2003; Pressley (Maki, &Ghatala, ciency feed- on Based this profi- monitoring more feedback on their answers,” accurate with provide learners 1994.) &Narens, (Adapted Nelson from occur. judgments postdiction and prediction where locations the and components, control and ing Figure 1 434 Absolute accuracy Absolute referred is which to must calibration, bemadebetween distinction important An of Learning In Advance Ease-of-learning ACQUISITION Selection of Selection Processing Kind of Judgments Nelson and Narens’s framework showing memory stages, examples of monitor- examples stages, memory showing Narens’s and Nelson framework Relative accuracy On-going Learning (also known as calibration) refers to the degree of correspondence correspondence of degree the to refers calibration) as known (also of L Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt Judgments Allocation of Allocation Study Time earning MONITORING RETENTION Maintenance of CONTROL does this by providing a measure of the degree to degree of the ameasure by providing this does Knowledge Termination Feeling-of-know of Study Judgments ing Selection of Selection Self-directed Strategy Search RETRIEVAL Judgments Prediction Search Confidence in Retrieved Answers Termin of Response of Search Output ation Postdiction Judgments Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 1987). For instance, students will be asked to predict or postdict their performance performance their to or predict 1987). beasked postdict will students For instance, 1987; 1989; etal., Pressley Pressley, &Ghatala, Pressley,2000; Levin, Snyder, etal., (e.g., Hacker, calculated is Bol, Horgan, performance &Rakow, judged actual and absolute global-level the between which judgmentscerns difference in of value the con- of measure calibration ways. Perhaps several mostlated straightforward in the sion studies). of comprehen-Zabrucky, calibration 1998, madein for postdictions predictions and 1987;& Ahmad, Pressley, Snyder, Murray, 1987; & &Ghatala, Levin, Lin seealso 1989; (Pressley Ghatala, Pressley, &Ghatala, respectively tions or postdictions, Levin, predic- is, that performance, after or before made be can judgments discussed, as (Schraw,1994). Third, whole) test a a on as items the all (i.e., level global a at or test) a items on level (e.g., judgments ofmadeon at alocal the individual mean the directed 35 the items,Of how toget do many correct?). you expect be Second, judgments can number of items (e.g., total of toget correct the howto state expect items many they participants 1993). &Nebelsick-Gullet, Potenza, asking entail can Judgments also 0%at one 100% end (Schraw, with other and at acontinuous along the value any line, know- in 100) achoice given (0, 80, are toselect 60, probabilities 20,40, cases but other to six in confidence or chance 20% knowing; in arerestricted participants knowing). Often, up to100%orin ing confidence chance confidence or likelihood no 0%, (i.e., or confidence scale scale bemadeon apercentage judgmentsFirst, can of likelihood calculated? made? (4) performance and actual between judged How difference the is made? (2) judged? being is level What of (3) performance judgment the being is When four shouldleast questions beconsidered: that (1) of judgment What being kind is however, performance; at are there actual ference and judged between performance dif- the taking involveall scores Difference curves. calibration and scores difference categories:twointo grouped be roughly can These methods calibration. to measure Nelson, 1984, 2005; 1996; Wright, used et al., of 1996), methods avariety is there one is of there γ(Maki measure relative commonly used is, accuracy, that Although Measured Is Calibration How consequencesdire for achievement on tests. have topics can unknown and among known todiscriminate and performance test to overall predict study.inability Thus, need further to-be-tested material the within Moreover, material. tested may topics students not specific same which know those to-be- have the mastered they that thinking may end prematurely studying, they colleagues argued that if students are overconfident in their and of whichitems orMaki correct are providesincorrect. estimates racy important predicted performance, relative levels, and accu- recall of overall estimates provides important Calibration useful. be quite can 2005).al., measures both et Nevertheless, (Maki differences ual individ- stable show to likely more are and accuracy relative of measures than ability (Nelson, 1996; Nietfeld, &Schraw, Cao,Enders, &Osborne, 2005; 2006). es aperson whether can indicates accuracy Finally, the difference between judged and actual performance can be calcu- be can performance and actual between judged difference Finally, the In educational contexts, measures of absolute accuracy tend to show better reli- Metacognition in Education timate actual overall test performance performance test overall actual timate 435 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 Group 2 earning Bs, Group 3 earning Cs, Group 4 earning Ds, and Group 5 earning Group and Ds, 5earning Group Cs, 4earning Group Bs, 3earning Group 2earning As, Group 1earning with course, semester-length the across performance academic students’ groups groupings Thefive are representing approximate overall centages. represent per- scoresas expressed test on postdicted students’ and the predicted axis the the values onand tests, three percentageof first on correct the students’ actual on values the the case, classroom context 2000). (Hacker this In etal., performance. with overconfidencewhich vary underconfidenceand in judgments Leonesio,1994). &Loftus, Moreover,the in graphs ways demonstrate calibration (Weingardt, performance relation actual and the predictions or between postdictions in which ways the of accuracy representations interpretable easily provide graphs variesCalibration fidence. across performance overconfidence, indicate and pointsundercon- above indicatebelow accuracy perfect levels rather Points performance. to actual equal exactly are predictions or which postdictions in than a single measure isplotted on performance the dicted of the on plotted is performance 1991; 1990). Yates, Actual (see Yates,accuracy of accuracy). 1990, for of standards adiscussion calibration Brier score).assess the to used be can then score probability The mean score or aquadratic score as scores, producing (also aprobability known actual and each to item assigned between probabilities differences the squaring suggested also andoverconfidence. positive values underconfidence overall indicate ues Yates (1990) score. Negative val- performance mean it from the judgment subtracting and ability prob- mean the item at level the by calculating becalculated can Abiasscoreis. also calibrated aperson the better difference scoreis, thethe zero closermean to Thus, 1982). items on (Lichtenstein the etal., performance totheir itemsequal are to the People are said to of number items. total by the divided is sum be this and summed, then items are wellvidual calibrated indi- the for calculated differences The if, performance. and in proportion) a as the(expressed long run, their assignedthe confidence judgment between absolute the difference of value the lated by taking probabilities calcu- is items. Calibration itemsa1tocorrect and toincorrect a0assigned with answer correct). (e.g.,the assessed get is rectly 75% will Performance that confident I the item cor- answering statementin as a confidence probability judgment expressed givenas a areusually These predictions or postdictions performance. their postdict or topredict measures). asked are ofdescription these For item, each participants (see Keren, relatively 1991, straightforward butcated still or Yates, 1990, for adetailed overconfidentand positively biased. scores a70judgments. Astudent would ascore who be predicts of but 80 actually indicate overconfident and positive values underconfident judgments, indicate values abso- the If accuracy. produce score. differences a is,negative Thatbias resultant the lutegreater not is value taken, indicate zero to closer Values taken. is difference that of absolute the judgments, and value postdicted and predicted fromtheir subtracted are scores actual their assessed, is performance respectively.correct, actual Once their ajudgment on or toget how correct gotby items expect many making on they atest 436 Figure 2 is a calibration graph that reflects calibration of test performance in a performance of test calibration Figure reflects that graph acalibration 2 is graph or (Keren, curve calibration the is calibration forThe method other measuring abit local-level judgments are more involving compli- of calibration Measures Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt x axis. The 45° line represents perfect calibration calibration line The45°represents perfect axis. y axis, and predicted or and post- axis, y axis represent x Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 performance and overconfidence and lowerwith performance performance. general findingthe contexts, areIn educational theynegative. underconfidentif and positive values observedare discrepancies zero. Aperson are overconfident is calculated thediscrepancies if has been that when the attained calibration perfect with tobe, aperson said is calibrated better the underconfidencea single judgment over is multiple tomake associated asked are students which levels in at global becalculated items. can discrepancy The closer to zero the discrepancieswith item at level averaged the and over multiple becalculated items, or the can crepancy become,higher dis- The performance. actual and perceived between performance of discrepancy grossly overconfident. their dentspredictions tended tobeoverconfident, with whereas lower-achievingand stu- postdictions, their predictions underconfidentin tended students tobe higher-achieving that is figure the displayed in about results the Ghatala (1990)andand Pressley research, calibration in tions over acommon predictions is finding referredexample the highest-performing to group this is an exception. Greater accuracy phenomenon of postdic- tions, and postdictions as tend the to be more accurate thancircles. represented filled by the predictions, although inFs. scores this Predicted represented are scores by hollow postdicted are the and squares, 2000.) al., et (Adapted Hacker from line. diagonal by represented the bration, cali- perfect against compared be groupcan performance each of accuracy calibration The Figure 2 In sum, all measures of calibration provide assessment degree of of aquantitative the calibration measures all sum, In tend postdic- toexceed predictions rule, as a general figure, this beseenin can As

Actual Score 100 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 A calibration graph plotting predicted and postdicted scores against actual scores. scores. actual against scores postdicted and predicted plotting graph A calibration 40 Underconfident 45 Group Four Group Five Predicted and Postdicted Scores andPostdicted Predicted Group Three Metacognition in Education Group T Examination One wo Group One Overconfident Perfect AccuracyPerfect testing effect. 10095908580757065605550 What is striking Postdicted Predicted 437 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 material or test items are difficult and test or underconfident items and the material when or itemsdifficult test are material have tend students tobe more shown studies that Many overconfidentthe when thoseare topicsprepared. least they to for which efforts study their may not allocate employed. strategy study ticular par- any of thebe compounded efficacy by overconfident regarding self-appraisals may predictions overconfident with associated drawbacks Thus, studying. of method aplanned by and objectives guided was self-reports studying of their their whether in that students appeared overconfident They found of techniques. study self-reporting son-Noel totheir respect (2002) with bebiased can have also students shown that Nelson, 2003; McCormick, 1999). Jamie- To complicate and Winne matters, further 2000; Hackeretal., 2002; nelly, 1982; &Epstein, Grimes, 2001; Glenberg, Wilkinson, Flan- 2004; etal., 1999; Bol & Hacker, Dunning 2001;& Granhag, 2005; Bol etal., arobust is phenomenon (e.g., paredness subjectareas many across Allwood observed the exam. or after responses during their evaluate achievement ortheir carefully promote to necessary steps remedial the take not may they judgments, calibration rate Thus, there is good evidence suggesting that 1999; 2005). Nietfeldif etal., &Dunning, students Kruger 2000; Hackeretal., 2005; & Allen, are unable to produce accu- 1997; (e.g.,&Hixon, of exams Barnett Bol &Hacker,types 2001; Bol, Hacker, O’Shea, on topoor various judgments performance have calibration beenlinked Inaccurate performance. totheir contributing skills essential are exam, the during performance monitor can how as they well well as exam, on the toperform likely are they well and how exam an to havethey forjudge how studied Therefore, ability students’ well professions. various into major,demic entry and graduation, college admissions, promotion, grade placements, aca- on educational impact an has tests high-stakes (Bol &Nunnery, important 2004). on Studentbecome performance increasingly test.” difficult have unreasonably an given teacher must sothe for hard 2004). test, (Winne, the For really “I example, studied poor is provides that when aready excuse performance self-handicapping strategy asa testtheir overconfidence preparation during inflate dents intentionally could (Hacker, effectiveness strategy’s senseof the provide afalse 1998).And, relatedly, stu- can strategy 2005).al., Strong overconfidencelearning employing aspecific while et have (Maki they not that material the mastered assume they because time study precious misallocate and for atest from studying disengage to confident may fail under- strongly who achievement motivation. are Students and academic students’ affect certainly they may threatening, underconfidencelife fidence or may be not consequences weather the lenging conditions. classrooms, of although In overcon- chal- tohandle pilot who overestimates her ability airline or an cases, court of his verdicts the when predicting who optimistic may alawyer beunduly her diagnoses, confident in consequences exemplified dire are by aunrealistically physician whois 2004). &Suls, Heath, Such 1999; Dunning, consequencesdire (Allwood &Granhag, have can predictions realistic accurate, tomake professions, many In inability the Contexts? Educational in Important Why Calibration Is 438 Overconfidence may influence attentionOverconfidenceinfluence mayor moreselectively. preparation Students pre- test or comprehension, skill, knowledge, one’s judging in Overconfidence has on well tests toperform ability accountability, the of era high-stakes an In Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 discussed in the next section. next the in discussed are studies These major and findings. characteristics of their terms in studies these of overview an Table provides 1 research. of line this of representative considered be possible, classrooms should may as and but in not list the beexhaustive calibration on research this of much as collect to We attempted have psychologists. educational to andfalls areathat oneof classroom often adifferent most research contexts is istic tonatural- findings laboratory by generalizing validity ecological strong Establishing risky. be can sometimes classroom contexts, especially different to contexts, findings those however, generalizing phenomena; psychological into insights critical provide often settings laboratory in obtained findings mentioned, As settings. classroom tic naturalis- in conducted studies from findings of patterns describe we section, this In Patterns of Findings in Classroom Contexts and responses. across distributed questions inefficiently mayattention effort be and situations, testing In mastered. have they already of study material totheir necessary 2005), may inappropriately they etal., devote more than Zabrucky, 1998; Maki time & Lin 2000; al., et or (Juslin items tend confidentstudents materials tobeless easy on the Because efficientmost in ways. or efforts study reading their monitor allocate and of metacomprehension 2005). afailure is stand etal., may students Thatis, not (Maki what onecomprehension or does not Not does under- recognizing studying. and study.empirical awaits aquestionfurther is that of student satisfaction indices other and evaluations overconfidence Whether affect course violations subjects. and of expectations nical ortech- who difficult teach for instructors true rings senseand intuitive ment makes argu- the data, (p. student not satisfaction did 8). collect general” Grimes Although in economics perhaps, instructor, the and discipline the course, the with satisfaction concluded for that, some lead “Unmet to students, dis- expectations performance dissatisfaction. Heand overconfidence studentunmet expectations to linked was (2002) amacroeconomics in Grimes enrolled course, undergraduates found that of choice study and majors. his of courses In academic academic with satisfaction Wood, Forte, Dunn, lenged &Riley, 1996). (Gaskins, unchal- left are answers incorrect and of uncertainty, override feelings easily could overconfidence toreconsider answer, question and the this begin before will they nelly, responses 2001). their in need students tofeel of adegree uncertainty Because knowledge their confident(Flan- in unjustifiably are responses they because their reconsider may students situations, confidencenotIn testing critically judgments. unrealistic their due effort to study need of most additional in ironically, is, that rial mate- difficult amount to time 2002). theof least Therefore,allocate may students &Jamieson-Noel, Winne 2004; Winne, 2005; Nietfeld etal., &Olsson, 2000; man, easy,are aphenomenon dubbed the Underconfidence also may adversely affect student monitoring and studentcontrol of affect monitoring Underconfidence may adverselyalso mayimpact also on student have an judgments calibration in Overconfidence Metacognition in Education hard–easy effect (Flannelly, effect 2001; Win- Juslin, 439 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 440 440 TABLE 1 Characteristics and Major Findings of Calibration Studies Conducted in Classroom Contexts Study Subjects and Context Research Design Treatment/Factors Measures Major Findings Barnett & 62 elementary school Descriptive, Grade level; subject area Absolute, global Predictions more accurate in spelling and Hixon students in Grades 2, 4, comparative prediction and social studies than in math; no consistent (1997) and 6 in spelling, math, postdiction accuracy grade-level differences; strong and social studies on class assessments; correlations between calibration accuracy scores on standardized and achievement test Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt Bol & Hacker 59 graduate students Quasi-experiment Practice test versus Absolute, global Students receiving practice tests less (2001) enrolled in two sections traditional review for prediction and accurate on predictions and scored lower of an introductory midterm and final postdiction accuracy on multiple-choice items; high achievers research methods in exams; achievement on course exams; better calibrated; predictive accuracy did education course level; item format achievement on course not differ by item format for high exams achievers, but low achievers more accurate in their predictions of scores on essay versus multiple-choice items Bol et al. 356 undergraduates True experiment Calibration practice on Absolute, global No effect of the practice treatment on (2005) enrolled in several five online quizzes prediction and calibration or achievement; high achievers sections of social and versus no quiz practice; postdiction accuracy better calibrated; low achievers less cultural foundations in achievement level on quizzes and final accurate, overconfident; explanatory style education course exam; achievement on accounted for a large portion of the quizzes and final exam; variance in the dependent measures explanatory style scores Flannelly 66 senior year True experiment Practice test and Judgment bias Students who received practice test with (2001) undergraduate nursing feedback on confidence (calculated by feedback exhibited less overconfidence on students enrolled in a ratings versus no subtracting mean hard items and less underconfidence on psychiatric mental practice test or performance from easy items; lower achievers overconfident health course feedback; achievement; mean confidence) on but high achievers underconfident on item difficulty (hard or hard and easy exam hard items; low achievers more confident easy) items; scores on on wrong answers and less confident on individual items right answers Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22

Garavalia & 69 senior year Quasi-experiment Goals instruction versus Self-efficacy for self- Accurate predictors who had goal-setting Gredler undergraduates comparison (case regulated learning; goal intervention obtained higher grades than (2002) enrolled in two sections study); calibration analysis; prior inaccurate predictors in comparison of a health science accuracy (high versus achievement; final condition; inverse relationship between course low) course grade expected grades with actual grades and grade point average Grimes 253 undergraduates Descriptive, Gender; age; race; grade Absolute, global Large degree of overconfidence on both (2001) enrolled in a principles comparative point average; previous predictive accuracy; absolute and relative predictive measures; of macroeconomics exposure to content; relative global older students less likely to overpredict course absence; study practices predictive accuracy performance; inverse relationship (better or worse between overconfidence and grade point

compared to first average; previous exposure to content Metacognition in Education exam); exam scores resulted in greater overpredictions Hacker et al. 99 undergraduates Preexperiment, Self-assessment Absolute global, Strong relationship between performance (2000) enrolled in two sections comparative instruction and practice predictive and and predictive, postdictive accuracy; of an introductory tests; achievement level postdictive accuracy; overconfidence among lowest-scoring educational psychology hours spent studying groups, gains in calibration accuracy course among high achievers; students relied on prior calibration judgments rather then prior performance; study time unrelated to prior performance Hacker et al. 137 undergraduates Quasi-experiment Extrinsic incentives, Absolute global Both extrinsic incentive conditions led to (2007) enrolled in one of four reflection, both predictions, greater improved accuracy among low sections of an incentives and postdictions; predictive, achievers; high achievers more accurate introductory reflections, or neither; postdictive accuracy; calibrators; for lower achievers, the educational psychology achievement level exam sores; explanatory explanatory style constructs predicted course style scores both predictions and postdictions 441 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 442 TABLE 1 Characteristics and Major Findings of Calibration Studies Conducted in Classroom Contexts (Continued) Study Subjects and Context Research Design Treatment/Factors Measures Major Findings Nietfeld et al. 27 undergraduates Preexperiment, Feedback; item Global and local Monitoring remained stable over the (2005) enrolled in an comparative difficulty; grade point monitoring accuracy semester; global monitoring more educational psychology average (mean difference accurate than local monitoring; high- survey course between confidence achieving students more accurate in and performance); bias monitoring their performance; students scores (signed mean better calibrated and underconfident on Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt differences); exam easy items but overconfident on difficult scores items Nietfeld et al. 84 undergraduate Quasi-experiment Weekly monitoring Local monitoring Monitoring exercises and feedback (2006) students enrolled in exercises and feedback accuracy (mean improved monitoring accuracy and two sections of an versus feedback only; difference between performance on exams and course educational psychology gender confidence and project; students who improved their survey course performance); bias calibration also improved their exam scores (signed mean scores; improved calibration associated differences); exam and with modest increased self-efficacy course project scores; self-efficacy Shaughnessy 47 undergraduate Descriptive Achievement levels Local confidence levels Some confidence judgment accuracy even (1979) students enrolled in an (quartiles) (midpoint between among lowest achievers; higher achievers introductory mean on correct versus had higher confidence-judgment psychology course incorrect items; accuracy scores; low-achieving students confidence-judgment overconfident but high-achieving accuracy (ratio of local students tended to be underconfident confidence over pooled variance) Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22

Sinkavich 67 undergraduate Preexperiment, Extra credit for replacing Confidence ratings; A relationship between confidence ratings (1995) students enrolled in comparative incorrect with correct exam scores and exam performance; good students two sections of an items on final; feedback had higher correlations between educational psychology and comparison of confidence ratings and exam course exam scores with performance; both good and poor classmates students improved their scores on tests by using the replacement items Metacognition in Education 443 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 after taking the test) and local (i.e., confidence ratings eachfor item) the confidence ratings Student test)and (i.e., levels. local taking after performance on overall ratings (i.e., confidence global atboth measures calibration employed and course psychology educational an in enrolled students undergraduate tionship seemstobecomplicatedal. by item Nietfeld difficulty. et (2005)studied and achievement. accuracy calibration between link the supports result last This control the condition. in who students did were calibrated accurately less than grades actual received higher intervention who received students agoal-setting calibrated Moregrades. accurately final their predicting in accuracy on their based calibrators (GPA).age or inaccurate groups into of accurate were students divided Furthermore, point aver- grade and grades actual their with science course health undergraduate (2002) an in inverse discovered grades relationship an students’ expected between Gredler and Garavalia course. psychology educational undergraduate an in enrolled compared tolower-achieving students among higher-achieving performance exam (1995),Sinkavich and who stronger reported correlations confidenceratings between information” (p. 510). unknown and known between mirrored were by findings These adequately todistinguish inability demonstrated “an on exam, each performance overall He when students. judging students, positedgraduate poorly that performing under- psychology among exams classroom four of series a on performance and racy (1979)Shaughnessy found accu- astrong positive relationship calibration between Similarly, peers. more better-performing and their overconfident accurate less than (2002)achievement. Grimes lower-scoring found that were economics students were who lower-achieving were students, overconfident. than largely postdictions and were butstudents their predictions more somewhat in accurate underconfident higher-achieving Again, foundations courses. educational undergraduate in enrolled students conductedwith was study of This bias. direction and accuracy on calibration impact of achievementthe to respect with findings replicated the (2005), we further al. did not In Bol et emergeinteractions accuracy. These for postdiction exams. final predictions of onmultiple-choice their accurate and midterm the items both across less tiple-choice items, but lower-achieving essay were students and the significantly on both mul- similar was students higher-achieving of accuracy calibration The type. independent the of achievementand variables between levelinteraction item nificant asig- studywas latter the in Asomewhat result course. methods research unexpected a in enrolled students graduate and course psychology educational introductory an Hacker(2001), Bol and in enrolled for undergraduates pattern same this we observed 1999).Dunning, & but unaware (Kruger effect the termed been has particular in among students fidence lower-achieving The levels. overcon- undergraduate and graduate economics and the atsciences, both health nursing, psychology, education, in enrolled students among observed been has but underconfidence Figure(see accuracy dents tend toshow high 2).This pattern tend to show low accuracy and overconfidence on exams, and students lower-achieving higher-achieving level of calibration, to student global achievement: At the stu- Bias and Level Achievement 444 The link between achievement level and accuracy is well established, but the butrela- established, is well achievement between and accuracy level link The and accuracy calibration between link the researchers have Other confirmed andal. Hackeret (2000) In both effects. of both these exemplify studies own Our Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt As described, calibration accuracy has been linked beenlinked has accuracy calibration described, As unskilled unskilled Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 2006; Schraw et al., 1993; etal., Yates, Schraw 2006; 1990).that were conducted studies Three in classroom etal., Nietfeld, Cao 1987; &Morris, Epstein, 2000; Hackeretal., Glenberg, Sanocki, lead to improvements of can intervention (e.g., types have various shownstudies that Koriat, 1997; 2005; Nietfeldet al., 2005; &Schraw, Nietfeld etal., 2002), whereas other are or durablenot to obtain improvements (e.g., Bol &Hacker, difficult 2001; are Bol havethatSome answered. shown studies not has beendefinitively aquestion that is Accuracy Calibration Improving mustit beconsidered. occurs which context in the investigated, being of is students capabilities self-assessment the ment when we that that havechapter, suggested Hixon and proposed this in Barnett argu- the to Similar suffered. accuracy their and were tests students more difficult, quite was however,good; the accuracy oldest students, than the for oldest tests ficult less-dif- Forwho youngest faced students, the subjectareas. levels and grade across varied classroom of tests difficulty the that the fact due to likely most was This areas. and subject levels grade across of findings patterns notdence did uniform support scores were classroom on prediction greater accuracy.Evi- tests the correlated with High achievement: with correlated significantly was accuracy prediction global-level students’ the Overall, studies. social and math, spelling, in classroom performance their postdict and predict could graders sixth and second, whether fourth, assessed (1997) Hixon and Barnett interviews, individual During research. calibration their items. achievementdifficult level buton differed mental health nursing. Students’ bias scores were similar on easy items regardless of for each test item ratings confidenceon content ononly local related topsychiatric students, she relied nursing undergraduate study using In her tion of item difficulty. func- as a (2001) Flannelly varied items. that calibrationdiscovered bias difficult also with content, knowledge less tested of the should with sumably displayaccuracy less 2001)essay Therefore, items. than students,pre- were lower-achieving more difficult The multiple-choice by item difficulty. items usedbe explained wehad (Bol &Hacker, predictions ofrate onmultiple-choice their items. However, might contradiction this accu- less significantly were students lower-achieving but items, essay and ple-choice between multi- not did students differ of higher-achieving accuracy calibration the that such achievementtype, between andinteraction levelitem showed asignificant what results Our contradicted we had found. seemingly ment. Therefore, their results 2000), not did show2001; Hackeretal., achieve- 2005; arelationship with Bol etal., (Bol &Hacker, studies own our in used measure postdiction tothe similar was which of (2005) calibration, measure achievement Nietfeld levels. colleagues’ global and confidenceitems easy buton overconfidence items. difficult on &Jamieson-Noel, Winne 2002), 2004; Winne, displayed students 2005; under- et al., Nietfeld (Flannelly, effect have 2001;ies that 2000; hard–easy al., shown the et Juslin stud-other to Similar items. compared on todifficult easy more calibration accurate students showed of item terms difficulty, lower-performing In students. than accurate were students more Not monitoring. higher-performing and unexpectedly, accuracy by GPA measured as performance, astrongpredictor of scores, was test local and We didthat identified one only not classroom study rely in on college students student to linked were calibration of measures local only that is note particular Of Metacognition in Education Whether calibration accuracy can beimproved can accuracy calibration Whether 445 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 reflection and acombinedfeedback, reflection treatment condition and incentives, (reflection, course psychology were educational undergraduate an of randomly sections four design, factorial their In assigned to one scores. actual fromtheir deviated of scoresdents’ minimally postdicted predictedand four conditions: stu- creditpoints if provision the accuracy, butfeedback of on extra also calibration incentives and feedback, accuracy. in positive changes torealize necessary is intervention monitoring explicit powerful more a that prediction authors’ the supporting improved, both formance per- and accuracy Calibration exams. course three week the following the accuracy calibration were students onfeedback, interpretation feedback the given their and items, and reflect on the accuracy preparation, study of respond provide their toand as on well confidencereview ratings their confidence ratings. In sessionaddition as class for current the learning their studentstoassess asked exercises that to weekly intervention consisted of The groups. monitoring comparison and monitoring the to assigned randomly were sec- course two psychology (2006), educational al. et undergraduate an of tions Nietfeld in Therefore, necessary. be may monitoring in training explicit that suggested and of repeated feedbackaccuracy for calibration improving effectiveness the toestablish failed 2005) they previous (Nietfeld, study etal., Cao their in that Recall self-efficacy,vention accuracy, and performance. on calibration intervention. of the power or strength improvement modest at showing least those and tothe may beattributable accuracy calibration no showing in classroom-based change between ference studies results in dif- the some In instances, interventions have beensuccessful. experimental other improve accuracy. to insufficient was monitoring, in training explicit feedback, without self-directed that The item-level posited authors their ratings. confidence as well as results exam their toreview opportunity hadan students even though exams four course across not did improve accuracy (2005) students’feld calibration that reported etal. also accuracy. Niet-improvingcalibration in not intervention did tice seemtobeeffective Therefore,the prac- quizzes. on the performance their postdict and topredict asked condition practice when to compared the assigned students to who students were not for similar was exam final the on accuracy calibration findings, earlier toour Similar scores was provided immediately to students each after taking theof online quizzes. undergraduate educational foundationsan course. Feedback inon quiz exam final thatthe andon preceded postdictions students’ onpredictions fivepractice quizzes andmidterm exam. final the or measures, included study trials two the only notdid for improve One lackof explanation improvement the exams. across may bethat accuracy calibration review. Furthermore, traditional who students experienced than were tests accurate less content who practice the students reviewed that via indicated ings ditional review to improve calibration accuracy on midterm and final exams. The find- tobestable tends despite practice. feedback and student calibration contexts (Bol &Hacker, 2005) 2001; Nietfeld demonstrated that 2005; etal., Bol etal., 446 Hacker, Bol, and Bahbahani (2007) not only studied the impact of reflection and of reflection impact (2007) the not studied Hacker, only Bahbahani Bol, and inter- monitoring explicit of an impact (2006) the investigated et al. Nietfeld, Cao accuracy, calibration toimproving resistance suggest that tostudies contrast In (2005) of calibration impact Bol etal. the investigated To limitation, this address tra- Hacker(2001)Bol and versus tests using practice of effectiveness the investigated Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 external rewards or incentives were effective in increasing the accuracy of calibration calibration of accuracy the increasing in 2007). amongjudgments lower-achieving only (Hacker students etal., effective were incentives or rewards external study. al. (2000) Finally, et the Hacker in students higher-achieving for only effective (2006) study but Nietfeld, et al. Cao the judgments were in calibration founding tobe improv-in were monitoring on and self-assessment effective clearly instruction and 2001), alone do not tests seemtoimprove practice accuracy.Reflection calibration calibration accuracy. one With exception (Flannelly, insufficient improving for are alone practice feedback It and that appears results. have mixed yielded room settings Hacker, 2001). (for condition accuracy for acounterexample, seeBol calibration & be anecessary may of testcontent. testand familiarity this Thus, creating type the with familiar students may have that contributed making studies was toimprovedtwo calibration The commonitems. these underconfidenceelement itemseasy and on by shared cult review only.via tests were Practice in effective decreasing overconfidencediffi- on who content of prepared those the review combined tests with with practice taking by exam the for prepared who students of accuracy calibration the compared also (2001) Flannelly students. improved, but for only higher-achieving accuracy tion and postdic- that prediction revealed The results performance. academic ment, and manage- time self-assessment setting, for included benefits of accurate that the goal a complex instruction course treatment and of consisting tests, feedback, practice differences. these todiscern research andfuture is it up to two studies, thements account could for between differences performancejudg- 1990). and between confidencejudgments al., differences These et (Hertzog of performance estimate aspecific into one’s task the toperform ability translating and completed be to task memory the of as appraisal such self-efficacy, to of addition memory in aspects other entail predictions/postdictions of performance judgments, as self-efficacy beconceptualized confidence and can tions, judgments test scores, not confidencepredictions/postdic- performance, Although judgments. of actual were postdictions and predictions global-level of calibration measures our levels and local (item global onby relied item), confidence judgments at both whereas However, different calibration measures were (2006), by reported Nietfeld, to that etal. Cao welar results. used found contradictory in the two studies. Nietfeld et al. differences accuracy. onofmeasures predictive nificant sig-no were There postdictions. their in accurate less were condition reflection-only however, received groups incentives; that two the in the lower-achieving in students for lower-achieving students exams two last on the accuracy postdiction increasing in We accuracy. improve successful calibration was intervention our found that their to use might they on and strategies judgments, calibration and performance their between discrepancies any on performance, their for explanations on toreflect them asking aquestionnaire and accuracy calibration feedback on their with students ing feedback), or acomparison condition.treatment The reflection consisted of provid- Overall, findings on the effectiveness of various inclass- interventions various applied of the effectiveness on findings Overall, of the effectiveness illustrated al. study the Hackeret (2000) in Finally, findings and condition simi- feedback reflection was 2007) (Hacker our Even etal., though Metacognition in Education 447 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 difficult exam. difficult lead tounderconfident could based onaperceivedjudgments substantial, if which, at, have notion or abetter of guessed just how were items many unknown exam on the they because students the exam, completing after Onehow that interpretation is performed. they accurate or realistic more be to ableare to better tend judge effect),they and have (i.e., “testing” completed the exam the postdictions students’ that know do to interpret. difficult are We more accuracy riblefor postdiction findings exam”). The achievement levelsbut ater- teacher (e.g., wrote test, the on todo well the “I expected and lower explanations overconfidencewould expect external with associated to be (Bol2005).postdictions etal., their more they in the were underconfident totask-centered causes, accuracy tion opposite from prediction accuracy: The more students attributed however, observed, The pattern was their tered (external) emerged sources significant. as poor calibra- items responses only related Fortothe predictions. totask-cen- postdictions, their causes), (internal more abilities the they underconfidentin were testing own to their Moreover, accuracy performance. poor calibration their more the attributed students causes), (external sources more the overconfident of their predictions they in were task-centered to accuracy calibration poor their attributed students more the that the Foroutcome exam. onof accuracy, afinal prediction we foundtion accuracy to prediction postdic- uniquestyle contribution and the explanatory in of patterns examined we analyses, regression Using 2007). al., et Hacker 2005; al., et (Bol studies most our recent in questionnaire explanatory-style an from obtained results the judgments. of calibration account for persistent stability the partially Schneider, Carr, Borkowski, &Turner,knowledge (Kurtz, 1988), may which at least metacognitive and style explanatory between haveResearchers links established effort. and student’s the such as causes ability own tointernal tobeattributed likely Conversely, more is direction. exam on an students’ success instructor inadequate items of or the trickiness the such factors as toexternal exam on an failure attribute and causes external to self-worth failures attribute to people for hedonic as bias known is causes tointernal successes tendency The style. attributional or of encompassedStable about are explanatory beliefs theories under performance 1993). etal., 1980; Schraw &Ross, (Nisbett performance aboutpersistent beliefs their stable on judgments calibration their base to appear people performance, future of predictors best the of two be likely would which present, or past performance, actual judgments on calibration their 1993). basing etal., 2007;than Schraw rather Thus, 2000, al., et performance their Hacker (e.g., of the stability than higher significantly often is multiple across of postdictions students’exams predictions and stability the havethat studies shown Several case. the does not judgments. seemtobe This their would modify calibration of their about inaccuracy evidence the provided with edly whorepeat- students are that One would expect vexing. is reviewed classroom studies Explanatory Style 448 The findings related to predictive accuracy seem intuitively clear because one clear seem intuitively related accuracy tofindings The predictive analyzed we Tocalibration, on influence of attributions potential the investigate (Covington, 2004). For students, this means that they are more likely to more are likely they that means 2004). (Covington, For this students, The stability of calibration accuracy demonstrated in many of the in many of demonstrated accuracy calibration of The stability Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt (Weiner, 1986) or protection of Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 were better predictors students concluded higher-achieving that Sinkavich lower-achieving classmates. of whatachieving students they exhibiting significantlygreater calibration do accuracythantheir or do higher- of pattern the now-familiar confirmed findings not Other exams. earlier the than know on a test, two, moredifficult was the comprehensiveother and than longer afinal was exam indicating which better exam, third the that The author speculated observed. was exam third to the the other course section, a marked decrease in prediction accuracy In exam. second third for fromthe only tothe and from one sections course two of the the second increased scoresonly and total ratings confidence Correlations between accuracy. relative their neighbors toevaluate feedback totheir examination to compare their instructed and for class the statistics were summary addition, they provided with In ratings. confidence and performance feedback on their detailed individualized, twofromgiven sections were course students exams, course three twothe of After accuracy. dure involvedamong comparisons clearly on students calibration social the hereproce- because discussed theis study influences, not toinvestigatesocial (1995). conductedclassroom was by Sinkavich was stated purpose the Although confidentwrong” when (p. highly being 590). confidence. and “Groupory workundesirable to of byproduct theproduce appears diminish as a result of feedback, directions, class readings, or lectures on metamem- did not Theeffect areone” than effect. worse theheads “two as finding coined this confidence forwrong answers continued increaseto across The quizzes. authors answers. groupsHowever, wereright that and alone, moretheir confidentin group who worked individuals showed They groupsthan class. to be moreduring accurate groups in small cooperatively completing quizzes confidence while and accuracy Fox and students’ undergraduate (2004)a classroom context. Puncochar examined influences. to social conclude that students with low metacognitive may skills be particularly susceptible the authors to led mentsfrom studies for both low only self-regulators.The results ability. In a low metacognitive hadmore versus high on cues study. with students impact second Social study, afictitious aboutfrom information comparative student performance with ticipants they foundYuzawa that social (2001)and cues Moisses, Caravalho, calibration. have influence on focused variables how social influenced manipulated and of confusion. Fewer feelings studies dissatisfaction cognitive responses reflecting confidence social (1996) Karabenick ies, presence the of that reported colearners’ questions elicited judg- cues in a laboratoryables generally. on metacognition of For four aseries stud- laboratory in example, setting by classmates. their son presenting with perceptions of compari- goodtheir of self-worth in students as image themselves and par- toprotect performance overestimate their and style attributional aself-serving strate For some pressures. example, lower-achievingdue may students demon- tosocial influence style in classroom The style. explanatory contexts of may be more potent Influences Social The second study to investigate social influences on student calibration in the in calibration influencesstudent on The secondinvestigate tosocial study in calibration on influences social investigated that studies two only We identified vari- influencesthe of social There haveinvestigating beena of studies number Social variables influence metacognition as well as explanatory explanatory as well as metacognition influence variables Social Metacognition in Education 449 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 self-directed feedback may be necessary for improved Nietfeld, feedback may in be necessary self-directed accuracy. And, with monitoring in training explicit (2005) that posited al. et Nietfeld accuracy. and feedback tests practice with students Simply providing accomplished. not is easily accuracy on calibration accuracy is used. adaptively is not enough of monitoring how to metacognitive much understanding may better provide with us significantlycontrol). classroom, however, the In of processing students cognitive self-directed the improve experimental via (i.e., short-circuiting processing cognitive self-directed theirticipants’ (1994) laboratories, researchers attempt par- in tocontrol in that variations argued to maintain engagement in the task or to save used overconfidence strategies the face,of personal areresult of lower-achieving students respectively. Nelson and and students Narensunderconfidence higher-achieving perhaps or of effects, or scaling ing, anchor- measurement, arecalibration confidenceof due to in methods variations Perhapsstake. issues at theresimilar but may be difficult, among them generalizations may which make and studies, classroomlaboratory these between differences obvious of low-association items (e.g.,recall 1997). Connor,are &Hertzog, Dunlosky, There younger subsequent tend tobeoverconfident adults concerning their judgments in as compared Older to adults calibration: in age-related differences investigating ies stud- have inlaboratory findings been of found patterns effect).unaware Similar lower-achievingwhereas but tend students tobeoverconfidentunskilled the (i.e., items, difficult underconfident tend tobe on students ment Higher-achieving level. easy items items. underconfidence overconfidencedemonstrate on but difficult on or students participants In contexts:is general, apparentin both effect hard–easy the Also, and shouldjudgments. more beablethe test tomake accurate after formance per- their items, and testing have the of test, much more about type information the or students the participants that in clear intuitively seems This made prior totesting. judgments calibration than tend tobe more testing accurate judgments madeafter in laboratory as classroom aseffect appears to besalient contexts:well Calibration calibration. of applications classroom on attention We situations. our environmental focused valid more into laboratory ecologically the of outside go to need a is there that acknowledge However, also we research. such acontinued is need for there we and acknowledgethat process, monitoring nitive metacog- this into insights provided important has conducted many on calibration been that Thelaboratory work situation. has environmental the classroom as the and category of organism, specific the behavior, —as tograduate —elementary students for research.” “target our We to-be-explained the as identifying on focused calibration We introduced this chapter by adoptingConclusions Nelson and Narens’s (1994) guidelines judgments. calibration for improving for comparisons accuracy.However,calibration support forof social effectiveness the mixed was there 450 Classroom investigations of calibration have shown that improving calibration haveClassroom investigations of calibration improving shown calibration that However,is compromised effect hard–easy the by achieve- classroom in settings, testing the context. transcend example, For that to appear areThere somefindings Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 rooms using authenticrooms tasks. using theworld messy class- to of real-life findings of these generalizability the investigate butalso to need are paramount, we when validity concerns aboutbeneficial internal endorse Nelson Narens’s and further position certainly are laboratory that studies classroom We contexts. within developmental calibration in ter understand changes help bet- us will designs or cross-sectional Longitudinal warranted. clearly is tasks and courses, levels, grade across More on courses. student research calibration ogy psychol- educational in enrolled here were usually college conducted students, with reviewed one With studies exception, classes. the own researchers tendtheir touse that surprising not is it samples, convenience employ researchers many that Given classroom. of the setting more intothe laboratory to venture naturalistic fromthe toheed Nelson Narens’s is research and for future direction (1994) obvious An advice Directions for Future Research forces social would and not beunexpected. accuracy calibration between connections finding salient, highly are influences social which classroom in contexts, 1995). Sinkavich, &Fox, 2001; 1996; 2004; Puncochar In etal., Karabenick, valho Moreover,(Cara- accuracy have factors calibration beenfound social toinfluence style. explanatory such as traits, by stable personality part, in beexplained, could ity Such stabil- judgmentstime. and tend toberelativelycalibration stable tasks across for observed higher-versus lower-achieving noted, As style students. of explanatory patterns different with judgments, calibration in variance the of amount significant failures) for accounts and a successes their people towhich (i.e., attribute causes the the studies we reviewed would suggest a more complicated picture. Explanatory style on of knowledge. However, atest that performance a prediction about their of several make and possess, memories, develop inventory knowledgethey of an the their access tors likely become much more complex. Before a test is given, students may directly (for interpretation, seeKoriat, 1997).memory fallible is of acritique this all, after — result will but accuracy high notnot, perfect morethan and given, often be will confidence of levels high retrievable, are memories If asked. being questions may be directly accessing their memories in search for information pertinent to the (i.e., judgments local-level item level), at the students for making When investigation. one worse effect). are heads than two the answers wrong (i.e., in overconfidence by-product of increasing undesirable yet produce the accuracy groups calibration may increase small in working addition, In for tobeeffective lower-achieving appeared students. butonly or incentives, these rewards of use external the beaccomplished could through accuracy calibration in comprehension (Hacker, showed 2004). classroom results Other improvements that not only for monitoring strategies for training necessity explicit shown the has which research, strategy reading butthe also for control strategies with resonates tofinding well This increase case. shown tobethe was (2006), etal. this Cao reading When making global-level judgments (i.e., judgments fac- level), global-level test at contributing the the making When area afertile judgments remains contribute that tocalibration factors Identifying Metacognition in Education 451 Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 References improve achievement. academic ultimately and classroom settings in interventions toimprove accuracy calibration successful toward us more may information, direct contextual with rich data, Qualitative els. lev- grade and areas, subject teachers, across student expectations preparation, and may have that by pedagogy, influenced been test patterns todetect observations (1997) classroom and of student classroom tests, analysis interviews, relied on their Hixon and school classrooms,Barnett elementary within ofstudy student calibration 2007). their (Hacker In etal., accuracy related tocalibration style explanatory ing assess- from close-ended our questionnaire obtained findings responses with these scores. We have actual attempted toalign their and predictions their between ancies discrep- any toexplain questions toopen-ended torespond students study, we asked recent most our In designs. quantitative employed reviewed we studies classroom strategies with preparation, representstest one avenue study. for future qualitative during shouldimprove ability monitoring turn in which judgments, metacognitive tions to explain strategies their performance. Attributional retraining to promote attribu- moreon external and relying predictions overconfident, realistic in unrealistic persevering in such as senseof ego-protecting self-worth strategies, use vated their and topreserve mixed-methodoverconfident. In classroom situations, lower-achieving students may be more moti- of largely who lower-achieving are students, problematic case the in be particularly designs.This may calibration accuracy. improving in insufficient alone are practice back and Nearly absencehave of the Studies more interventions. feed- demonstratedin that powerful all toimprovement judgments seemtoberesistant why calibration mayand illuminate of the teachers. dents and stu- both to relevant be would findings Such judgments. calibration their in accuracy who students demonstratewith maystudents more comparisonsfrom benefit social Lower-achieving groups. achievement the level as of well within students as vary could performance and form of the calibration in comparison data social instance, of For feedbackneeded. are group compositions, types and tasks, across tion studies accuracy, replica- on calibration variables of social impact the examining research are the no exceptions. Given scant more calibration specifically and Metacognition Barnett, J. E., & Hixon, J. E. (1997). Effects of grade level and subject on student test score test student on and subject (1997). level grade J.E. of &Hixon, J.E., Effects Barnett, P. confi- of (1999).the A. realism &Granhag, and M., C. of confidence Feelings Allwood, 452 Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional traditional &Hacker,and L., D.Bol, tests J.(2001). of practice effects of the A comparison A final direction forfuture research is to augment quantitative data collection influences tosocial linked are variables motivational other and style Explanatory As mentioned, student behavior in classrooms is influenced by social variables. predictions. predictions. Erlbaum. NJ: wah, approaches andprocess-tracing Neo-Brunswikian making: decision dence judgments in everyday life. In P. Juslin & H. Montgomery (Eds.), review on performance and calibration. onreview calibration. and performance 133–151. The Journal of Educational Research, 90 Research, Educational The of Journal Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt The Journal of Experimental Education, 69 Education, Experimental of The Journal , 170–174. , (pp. 123–146). Mah- 123–146). (pp. Judgment and Judgment , Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 Grimes, P. W. (2002). The overconfident principles of economics students: An examination of P.examination Grimes, W.An students: (2002).economics of Theprinciples overconfident Hacker, D. J. (2004). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In R. B. Ruddell In D. J.Hacker, foundations. Hacker,and empirical D. J.(1998). Definitions Metacognition: Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. &Epstein, in C., A. (1982). Failure knowing: of illusion Wilkinson, M., The A. Glenberg, Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of com- T., W., (1987). Epstein, C. calibration Sanocki, M., &Morris, A. Glenberg, Enhancing F., P. Forte, &Riley, L., answers (1996). Dunn, S., of changing perceptions Student Gaskins, setting, goal of academic (2002). study &Gredler, E. S., exploratory M. An L. Garavalia, T. L. (2001).Flannelly, questions. on test bias judgment students’ toreduce feedback Using for health, Implications (2004). J.M. Flawed self-assessment: &Suls, C., D., Heath, Dunning, Covington, M. V. (2004). Self-worth theory goes to college: Or do our motivation theories (1997). C. in absolute butConnor, T., not J.,&Hertzog, Age-related L. differences Dunlosky, the confidence on cues (2001). &Yuzawa, M. F., K., social Moisses, of effects Caravalho, The of control. locus the and (1977). D.Broadbent, E. hierarchies, Levels, Bol, L., & Nunnery, J. A. (2004). The impact of high-stakes testing on restructuring efforts in Hacker, L., P., D.Bol, achieve- D. J.,O’Shea, (2005).practice, &Allen, influence of The overt Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2000). Naïve empiricism and dogmatisim in confi- in dogmatisim and (2000). H. empiricism Naïve &Olsson, P., A., Juslin, Winman, D. &Hultsch, F. A., (1990). R. Dixon, metamemory, C., between Relationships Hertzog, in Hacker, (2000). D., Horgan, A. D. Test &Rakow, performance E. L., J.,Bol, and prediction (2007). K. Hacker, &Bahbahani, D. L., J.,Bol, a metacognitive skill. skill. a metacognitive & N.Unrau (Eds.), (pp. 1–23). Erlbaum. NJ: Mahwah, (Eds.), Graesser C. &A. J. Dunlosky, the self-assessment of comprehension. ofcomprehension. self-assessment the prehension. questions. choice on multiple ogy, 29 learning. self-regulated and calibration achievement 40 Education, ofNursing Journal workplace. the and education, Age. Information (Vol. onmotivationlearning and pp. influences sociocultural 4, 91–114). CT: Greenwich, on Research Van revisited: D. &S. (Eds.),motivate? In McInerney M. Etten Bigtheories accuracy. metamemory relative 69 Education, Experimental of cognition. self-regulation and by knowledge mediated judgments 29 Psychology, Experimental Press. Mellon learners ofdiverse assessment and testing educational The Taylor G. In (Ed.), students. In at risk pursuit of equity and excellence: serving schools 73 Education, of Experimental performance. and accuracy on calibration style explanatory ment and level, 107, effect. hard-easy of the examination Acritical research: dence 5, adults. in performance task memory and predictions, memory 92, Psychology, a classroom ofEducational context. Journal style. explanatory and reflection, ofincentives, effects The texts: Association. Reading DE: International Newark, 215–227. 384–396. , 221–230. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116 General, Psychology: ofExperimental Journal Theoretical models and processes andof processes Theoreticalreading models The Journal of Economic Education, 33 Education, Economic of The Journal Metacognition in Education , 325–343. , 181–201. Journal of Nursing Education, 35 , 88–90. Education, ofNursing Journal , 269–290. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5,69–106. Interest, Public inthe Science Psychological Psychology and Aging, 12 Aging, and Psychology , 10–16. Metacognition in educational theory and practice and theory ineducational Metacognition Memory & Cognition, 10 &Cognition, Memory Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom con- inclassroom accuracy calibration Explaining Journal Psychol- of Instructional , 50–71. (pp. 101–117). Lewiston, NY: NY: 101–117).(pp. Lewiston, 160–170. , 15–30. Manuscript under review. under Manuscript , 119–136. , 597–602. (5th ed., pp. (5th 775–779). ed., Psychology and Aging, Aging, and Psychology Psychological Review, Quarterly Journal of Journal Quarterly The Journal of The Journal The Journal 453

Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 Keren, G. (1991). Calibration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological methodological and (1991).Keren, G. Conceptual judgments: probability and Calibration questioning colearner of Effects on metacognition: (1996). influences A. S. Social Karabenick, 454 Lin, L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications implications and (1998). of Research M. comprehension: K. &Zabrucky, Calibration L., Lin, L. state of D. The (1982). of probabilities: B., & Phillips, Calibration Fischhoff, S., Lichtenstein, Schneider, W., E., &Turner, B. J.G., Borkowski, (1988). M., Carr, A. Kurtz, L. of Sources recognizing in How of it: D. difficulties unaware (1999). and J.,&Dunning, Kruger, Unskilled Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach Nelson, T.Nelson, of feeling-of-know- O. (1984). accuracy of the measures of current Acomparison in differences T. (2005). L. Individual &Zacchilli, Wheeler, E., M., A. Shields, H., R. Maki, for implications and Findings for text: J.(2002). M. Metacognition &McGuire, H., R. Maki, (1998). H. R. D. In C. J.Hacker, &A. Maki, Test J.Dunlosky, material. over text predictions Lundeberg, M. A., & Fox, P. W. (1991). generalize Do laboratory expectancy findings on text Meyer, G. (1934). An experimental study of old and new types of examination: The effects of effects The of examination: types new Meyer, of oldand study (1934). G. experimental An Miller E. W. &G. In Reynolds M. learning. and (2003). B. C. Metacognition McCormick, Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and stu- and accuracy J.W. monitoring &Osborne, (2005). L., Cao, Metacognitive J.L., Nietfeld, P. &A. (1994). T.Nelson, J.Metcalfe In L. O., &Narens, metacognition? investigate Why findings. new and (1990). framework T.Nelson, L. O., &Narens, Atheoretical T.Nelson, O. metacognition. (1999). versus Cognition on one performance of predicting T.Nelson, accuracy O. of the (1996). ameasure is Gamma issues. monitoring. on comprehension for education and instruction. instruction. and for education biases and Heuristics tainty: P. Tversky D. &A. to1980. In Kahneman, Slovic, (Eds.), art the 537–542). York: New Wiley. In M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, & R. Sykes influences. (Eds.), educational and parental, Societal, development: metamemory and memory 77 Psychology, one’s incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. ofPersonality andSocial Journal of learning. to judgments ing predictions. predictions. ing 97 absolute relative and metacomprehension accuracy. Press. New York: University Cambridge education. In T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), 39–67). (pp. Applied metacognition Erlbaum. NJ: wah, (Eds.), Graesser outcomes? to classroom examination set on memory. memory. on set examination Wiley. (Eds.), tion, 74tion, classroom. postsecondary the in dent performance MIT Press. aboutknowing (Eds.), Knowing Metacognition: Shimamura 26 Motivation, and of Learning 10 Psychology, Cognitive Applied item. individual on an item, not absolute of performance the toanother item relative , 723–731. Acta Psychologica, 77 Psychologica, Acta Handbook of psychology: Vol. 7, ofpsychology: Handbook psychology educational , 7–28. , 1121–1134. Psychological Bulletin, 95,109–133. Bulletin, Psychological Metacognition in educational theory and practice and theory ineducational Metacognition Douglas J.Hacker, Linda Keener Bol, C. and Matt Review of Educational Research, 61 Research, of Educational Review Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126 General, Psychology: of Experimental Journal (pp. 306–334) (pp. , 217–273. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25 Psychology, ofEducational Journal Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23 Psychology, Educational Contemporary , 125–141. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 Psychology, ofEducational Journal , 257–260. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. NJ: . Hillsdale, Practical aspects of memory (Vol. pp. 2, American Psychologist, 51 Psychologist, American The Journal of Experimental Educa- Experimental of Journal The Journal of Educational Psychology, Psychology, ofEducational Journal (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: MA: 1–25). Cambridge, (pp. , 94–106. (pp. 79–102). New York: York: New 79–102). (pp. Judgment under uncer- under Judgment (pp. 117–144). (pp. Mah- , 641–661. , 689–703. The Psychology , 345–391. , 102–116. , 297–316. Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 Wright, D. B. (1996). Measuring feeling of knowing: Comment on Schraw (1995). on Comment Schraw Wright, D. of (1996). knowing: B. feeling Measuring of self-reports calibration students’ P. (2002). D.Winne, L. &Jamieson-Noel, Exploring H., Implications processes: learning and of knowledge P.Winne, calibration (2004). H. Students’ from E. research F. eyewitness (1994). J.,&Loftus, R. Viewing Leonesio, R., Weingardt, K. Sinkavich, F. J. (1995). Performance and metamemory: Do students know what they don’t they what know students Do metamemory: F. and (1995). J. Performance Sinkavich, J.(1979).Shaughnessy, performance. of test as a predictor accuracy Confidence-judgment of (1993). calibration L. on the T., M. Potenza, Schraw, G., &Nebelsick-Gullet, Constraints monitoring. global and local knowledge on (1994).Schraw, G. metacognitive of effect The Zimmerman, B. M. J. In perspective. (2000). self-regulation: cognitive A social Zimmerman, Attaining Yates, J.F. (1990). attribu- an from of motivation Weiner, theories (1986). B. intrapersonal and Interpersonal &Fox, J.M., P.Puncochar, group making: and decision W.individual in (2004). Confidence (1987). S. E. Murray, Perceived &Ghatala, G., readi- H. J.R., Snyder,Pressley, M., Levin, L., B. (1987). M. &Ahmad, S., grade Test young E. in monitoring Ghatala, J.R., Levin, Pressley, M., text. from learning Monitoring (1990). learning: S. E. Self-regulated &Ghatala, Pressley, M., and forchildren atest (1989). S. taking E. of benefits &Ghatala, Pressley, M., Metacognitive V. (1984). &Sarris, A., Parducci, (1980). L. &Ross, R., Nisbett, on monitor- training strategy and knowledge (2002). &Schraw, G. of effect J.L., The Nietfeld, of measures (2006). &Schraw, comparison G. AMonte K., C. Carlo Enders, J.L., Nietfeld, exercises J.W.monitoring distributed &Osborne, of L., (2006).effect Cao, The J.L., Nietfeld, 551–572. achievement. and tactics about study 41 Research, cational environments. learning software powerful for designing andknowing Knowing P. (Eds.), &A. J.Metcalfe Shimamura In perspective. a metacognitive know? inPersonality, 13 ofResearch Journal performance. Psychology, 19 Educational Contemporary San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Academic Diego, CA: San (Eds.), Zinder &M. P. Pintrich, R. Boekaerts, 10 Psychology, Cognitive perspective. tional 96 Psychology, one.” ofEducational Journal worse than are heads “two When questions. adjunct containing text and text of reading initial by produced (PREP) performance examination for ness 43 Psychology, Child ofExperimental Journal children. school 25, Psychologist, Educational adolescents, young year 2000 ment accuracy. ing 66 ment, accuracy. absolute monitoring and of relative 1 Learning, and self-efficacy. and accuracy, monitoring on performance, feedback and . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. Cliffs, . Englewood Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22 Psychology, ofInstructional Journal , 258–271. . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. NJ: . Hillsdale, Judgment and decision making. anddecision Judgment The Journal of Educational Research, 95 Research, Educational The of Journal Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18 Educational Contemporary , 159–179. Educational Psychology Review, 12 Review, Psychology Educational Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47 Child ofExperimental Journal , 466–488. (pp. 157–184). Press. MIT MA: Cambridge, , 261–268. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judg- of social andshortcomings Human Strategies inference: Metacognition in Education Perspectives in psychological experimentations: Toward the experimentations: inpsychological Perspectives 19–33. Reading Research Quarterly, 22 Quarterly, Research Reading , 505–514. , 143–154. Contemporary Educational Psychology,Contemporary Educational 27 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. NJ:Prentice Cliffs, Englewood , 77–87. Educational and Psychological Measure- Psychological and Educational Handbook ofself-regulation , 131–142. , 1–14. , 455–463. International Journal of Edu- , 96–111. , , 219–236. , 430–450. Metacognition: Metacognition: Metacognition Metacognition (pp. 13–39). 13–39). (pp. , 582–591. Applied Applied 455 , Downloaded By: University of Michigan At: 20:07 01 Oct 2017; For: 9780203805503, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203805503.ch22 This pageintentionallyleftbank