2 research outputs found
Persistent Miscalibration for Low and High Achievers Despite Practice Test Feedback in an Introductory Biology Course
Students\u27 ability to accurately judge their knowledge is crucial for effective learning. However, students\u27 perception of their current knowledge is often misaligned with their actual performance. The relationship between learners\u27 perception of their performance and their actual performance on a task is defined as calibration. Previous studies have shown significant student miscalibration in an introductory biology course: students\u27 predicted exam scores were, on average, significantly higher than their actual scores. The goal of this study was to determine whether completion of a practice test before exams would result in better performance and calibration. The hypothesis was that students who completed a practice test would perform better and be better predictors of their performance on exams than students who did not engage in practice testing. As predicted, students who voluntarily completed a practice test, on average, performed better and were more calibrated than students who did not. Importantly, however, many of the lowest-performing students continued to significantly overestimate their knowledge, predicting higher scores on the exam than they actually earned, despite feedback from practice tests. In contrast, practice testing was associated with underconfidence in high-performing students. These findings indicate that practice tests may enhance calibration for many students. However, additional interventions may be required for the lowest-performing students to become better predictors of their performance
Opportunities for Self-Evaluation Increase Student Calibration in an Introductory Biology Course
Accurate self-evaluation is critical for learning. Calibration describes the relationship between learners’ perception of their performance and their actual performance on a task. Here, we describe two studies aimed at assessing and improving student calibration in a first-semester introductory biology course at a 4-year public institution. Study 1 investigated students’ (n = 310) calibration (the difference between estimated and actual exam performance) across one semester. Students were significantly miscalibrated for the first exam: their predicted scores were, on average, significantly higher than their actual scores. The lowest-performing students had the most inaccurate estimates. Calibration improved with each exam. By the final exam, students underestimated their scores. We initiated a second study in the following semester to examine whether explicitly teaching students about self-evaluation strategies would improve their calibration and performance. Instruction in the experimental section (n = 290) focused on students’ tendency to overestimate their abilities and provided retrieval-practice opportunities. Students in the experimental section showed better calibration and performance on the first exam compared with students in a control section taught by a different instructor during the same semester (n = 251). These findings suggest that simple instructional strategies can increase students’ metacognitive awareness and improve their performance