Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 101–121 | Cite as

Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: the effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style

  • Douglas J. HackerEmail author
  • Linda Bol
  • Kamilla Bahbahani
Article

Abstract

A 2 × 2 quasi-experimental design was used to investigate the impact of extrinsic incentives and reflection on students’ calibration of exam performance. We further examined the relationships among attributional style, performance, and calibration judgments. Participants were 137 college students enrolled in an educational psychology course. Results differed as a function of exam performance. Higher-performing students were very accurate in their calibration and did not show significant improvements across a semester-length course. Attributional style did not significantly contribute to their calibration judgments. Lower-performing students, however, were less accurate in their calibration, and students in the incentives condition showed significant increases in calibration. Beyond exam scores, attributional style constructs were significant predictors of calibration judgments for these students. The constructs targeting study and social variables accounted for most of the additional explained variance. The qualitative data also revealed differences by performance level in open-ended explanations for calibration judgments.

Keywords

Calibration Metacognitive monitoring Absolute accuracy Prediction Postdiction Attributional style 

References

  1. Arkes, H. R., Christensen, C., Lai, C., & Blumer, C. (1987). Two methods of reducing overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 133–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, J. E., & Hixon, J. E. (1997). Effects of grade level and subject on student test score predictions. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 170–174.Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Tal, D., & Bar-Zohar, Y. (1977). The relationship between perception of locus of control and academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O’Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 53–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Boss, M. W., & Taylor, M. C. (1989). The relationship between locus of control and academic level and sex of secondary students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caravalho, F., Moisses, K., & Yuzawa, M. (2001). The effects of social cues on the confidence judgments mediated by knowledge and self-regulation of cognition. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 325–343.Google Scholar
  9. Dembo, M. H., & Jakubowski, T. G. (2003). The influence of self-protective perceptions on the accuracy of test prediction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.Google Scholar
  10. Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (vol. 3, pp. 283–331). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  14. Flannelly, L. T. (2001). Using feedback to reduce students’ judgment bias on test questions. Journal of Nursing Education, 40, 10–16.Google Scholar
  15. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597–602.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63–84). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Hacker, D. J., & Bol, L. (2004). Metacognitive theory: Considering the social–cognitive influences. In D. M. McInerney, & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 275–297). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  18. Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Nelson, T. O. (1998). Social metacognition: An expansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karabenick, S. A. (1996). Social influences on metacognition: Effects of colearner questioning on comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keren, G. (1991). Calilbration and probability judgments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Acta Psychologica, 77, 217–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Lin, L. L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lundeberg, M. A., & Fox, P. W. (1991). Do laboratory findings on text expectancy generalize to classroom outcomes? Review of Educational Research, 61, 94–106.Google Scholar
  27. McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (vol. 7). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  29. Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 7–28.Google Scholar
  30. Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 131–142.Google Scholar
  32. Parducci, A., & Sarris, V. (1984). Perspectives in psychological experimentations: Toward the year 2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Puncochar, J. M., & Fox, P. W. (2004). Confidence in individual and group decision making: When “two heads are worse than one”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 582–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reivich, K., & Gillham, J. (2003). Learned optimism: The measure of explanatory style. In S.J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment (pp. 57–74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schraw, G., Potenza, M. T., & Nebelsick-Gullet, L. (1993). Constraints on the calibration of performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  37. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  38. Tuckman, B. W. (1996). The relative effectiveness of incentive motivation and prescribed learning strategy in improving college students’ course performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 197–210.Google Scholar
  39. Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 466–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas J. Hacker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Linda Bol
    • 2
  • Kamilla Bahbahani
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations