Improving college students' evaluation of text learning using idea-unit standards.

When recalling key definitions from class materials, college students are often overconfident in the quality of their responses. Even with commission errors, they often judge that their response is entirely or partially correct. To further understand this overconfidence, we investigated whether idea-unit judgements would reduce overconfidence (Experiments 1 and 2) and whether students inflated their scores because they believed that they knew answers but just responded incorrectly (Experiment 2). College students studied key-term definitions and later attempted to recall each definition when given the key term (e.g., What is the availability heuristic?). All students judged the quality of their recall, but some were given a full-definition standard to use, whereas other students first judged whether their response included each of the individual ideas within the corresponding correct answer. In Experiment 1, making these idea-unit judgements reduced overconfidence for commission errors. In Experiment 2, some students were given the correct definitions and graded other students' responses, and some students generated idea units themselves before judging their responses. Students were overconfident even when they graded other students' responses, and, as important, self-generated idea units for each definition also reduced overconfidence in commission errors. Thus, overconfidence appears to result from difficulties in evaluating the quality of recall responses, and such overconfidence can be reduced by using idea-unit judgements.

Using standards to improve middle school students' accuracy at evaluating the quality of their recall.

When recalling key term definitions from class materials, students may recall entirely incorrect definitions, yet will often claim that these commission errors are entirely correct; that is, they are overconfident in the quality of their recall responses. We investigated whether this overconfidence could be reduced by providing various standards to middle school students as they evaluated their recall responses. Students studied key term definitions, attempted to recall each one, and then were asked to score the quality of their recall. In Experiment 1, they evaluated their recall responses by rating each response as fully correct, partially correct, or incorrect. Most important, as they evaluated a particular response, it was presented either alone (i.e., without a standard) or with the correct definition present. Providing this full-definition standard reduced overconfidence in commission errors: Students assigned full or partial credit to 73% of their commission errors when they received no standard, whereas they assigned credit to only 44% of these errors when receiving the full-definition standard. In Experiment 2, a new standard was introduced: Idea units from each definition were presented, and students indicated whether each idea unit was in their response. After making these idea-unit judgments, the students then evaluated the quality of their entire response. Idea-unit standards further reduced overconfidence. Thus, although middle school students are overconfident in evaluating the quality of their recall responses, using standards substantially reduces this overconfidence and promises to improve the efficacy of their self-regulated learning.

Persistent overconfidence despite practice: the role of task experience in preschoolers' recall predictions.

In three experiments, preschoolers' ability to predict their picture recall was examined. Children studied 10 pictures, predicted how many they would recall, and then attempted to recall them. This study-prediction-recall trial was repeated multiple times with new pictures on each trial. In Experiment 1, children were overconfident on the initial trial, and this overconfidence persisted across three trials. In Experiment 2, children predicted either their own performance or another child's performance. Their predictions were overconfident across all trials regardless of whether they made predictions for themselves or for another child, suggesting that wishful thinking cannot fully account for their overconfidence. In Experiment 3, some children postdicted their previous recall performance prior to making each prediction. Although their postdictions were quite accurate, their predictions were still overconfident across five trials. Preschoolers' overconfidence was remarkably resistant to the repeated experience of recalling fewer pictures than the children had predicted. Even asking them to report the number that they recalled on a previous trial, which they could do accurately, did not cause them to lower their predictions across trials.

How young children judge whether a word is one they know: a dual criterion account.

Word familiarity judgment may be important for word learning, yet little is known about how children make this judgment. We hypothesized that preschool-age children differ in the judgment criteria that they use and that this difference derives from individual differences in basic memory processes. Those who have superior phonological working memory, but who retrieve less semantic information than their peers, base the judgment on whether they recognize a word's sound form. Those who show the opposite memory profile base the judgment on whether they retrieve a word's meaning. The results of two studies of 3- and 4-year-olds were consistent with these claims. Among those performing poorly on one memory measure, judgment accuracy was directly related to performance on the other memory measure. These memory-judgment relations were also found to be highly specific. This is the first investigation to demonstrate the usefulness of an individual differences approach for identifying relations between linguistic judgment processes and basic memory processes during early childhood.