谁能更准确地预测自己的成绩?本科生数学课程自我评估行为调查

IF 3.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Metacognition and Learning Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1007/s11409-024-09381-2
Kedar Nepal, Ram C. Kafle
{"title":"谁能更准确地预测自己的成绩?本科生数学课程自我评估行为调查","authors":"Kedar Nepal, Ram C. Kafle","doi":"10.1007/s11409-024-09381-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We collected data on students’ self-assessment behavior from four sections of a Calculus II course. Students were asked to write their expected scores on each of the weekly in-class quizzes and problems in the exams, immediately after they completed them. They were then asked to justify their expectation in writing. One-on-one interviews were conducted with a purposefully selected sample of students. During the interviews, they were asked to explain their perceived reasons for their self-assessment behaviors. While the results from quantitative analysis seemed to partially reinforce the findings of existing research that low performers generally overestimate, high performers underestimate their performance, and those in-between performers were (almost) accurate predictors, results from qualitative analysis provided additional insights into their self-assessment behaviors. After analyzing qualitative data, we identified five categories of student behavior: knowing about knowing (KK), not knowing about knowing (NKK), knowing about not knowing (KNK), knowing something is not known but not sure what (KBNKW), and not knowing about not knowing (NKNK). The quantitative analysis showed that students exhibited greater accuracy in assessing their performance when they belonged to the categories KK, KNK, and KBNKW, while their accuracy was lower when they fell into the categories NKNK and NKK. In other words, students who had greater awareness of their level of knowledge were more accurate in predicting their scores compared to their peers, irrespective of their actual performance levels. The logistic regression model revealed a substantial increase in the likelihood of underperforming students overestimating their performance compared to their high-performing counterparts.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who can predict their performance more accurately? An investigation of undergraduate students’ self-assessment behavior in mathematics courses\",\"authors\":\"Kedar Nepal, Ram C. Kafle\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11409-024-09381-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We collected data on students’ self-assessment behavior from four sections of a Calculus II course. Students were asked to write their expected scores on each of the weekly in-class quizzes and problems in the exams, immediately after they completed them. They were then asked to justify their expectation in writing. One-on-one interviews were conducted with a purposefully selected sample of students. During the interviews, they were asked to explain their perceived reasons for their self-assessment behaviors. While the results from quantitative analysis seemed to partially reinforce the findings of existing research that low performers generally overestimate, high performers underestimate their performance, and those in-between performers were (almost) accurate predictors, results from qualitative analysis provided additional insights into their self-assessment behaviors. After analyzing qualitative data, we identified five categories of student behavior: knowing about knowing (KK), not knowing about knowing (NKK), knowing about not knowing (KNK), knowing something is not known but not sure what (KBNKW), and not knowing about not knowing (NKNK). The quantitative analysis showed that students exhibited greater accuracy in assessing their performance when they belonged to the categories KK, KNK, and KBNKW, while their accuracy was lower when they fell into the categories NKNK and NKK. In other words, students who had greater awareness of their level of knowledge were more accurate in predicting their scores compared to their peers, irrespective of their actual performance levels. The logistic regression model revealed a substantial increase in the likelihood of underperforming students overestimating their performance compared to their high-performing counterparts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09381-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09381-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们从微积分 II 课程的四个部分中收集了有关学生自我评估行为的数据。我们要求学生在完成每周的随堂测验和考试问题后,立即写出他们对这些问题的预期分数。然后要求他们以书面形式证明自己的预期。对特意挑选的学生样本进行了一对一访谈。在访谈过程中,他们被要求解释自我评估行为的原因。定量分析的结果似乎部分证实了现有研究的结论,即成绩差的学生一般会高估自己的成绩,成绩好的学生会低估自己的成绩,而成绩介于两者之间的学生则(几乎)能准确预测自己的成绩。在对定性数据进行分析后,我们确定了五类学生行为:知道知道(KK)、不知道知道(NKK)、知道不知道(KNK)、知道某些事情不知道但不确定是什么(KBNKW)以及不知道不知道(NKNK)。定量分析结果表明,当学生属于 KK、KNK 和 KBNKW 类别时,他们评估自己成绩的准确率较高,而当他们属于 NKNK 和 NKK 类别时,他们评估自己成绩的准确率较低。换句话说,与同龄人相比,对自己的知识水平有更高认识的学生在预测自己的分数时更为准确,而与他们的实际成绩水平无关。逻辑回归模型显示,与成绩优秀的学生相比,成绩不佳的学生高估自己成绩的可能性大大增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Who can predict their performance more accurately? An investigation of undergraduate students’ self-assessment behavior in mathematics courses

We collected data on students’ self-assessment behavior from four sections of a Calculus II course. Students were asked to write their expected scores on each of the weekly in-class quizzes and problems in the exams, immediately after they completed them. They were then asked to justify their expectation in writing. One-on-one interviews were conducted with a purposefully selected sample of students. During the interviews, they were asked to explain their perceived reasons for their self-assessment behaviors. While the results from quantitative analysis seemed to partially reinforce the findings of existing research that low performers generally overestimate, high performers underestimate their performance, and those in-between performers were (almost) accurate predictors, results from qualitative analysis provided additional insights into their self-assessment behaviors. After analyzing qualitative data, we identified five categories of student behavior: knowing about knowing (KK), not knowing about knowing (NKK), knowing about not knowing (KNK), knowing something is not known but not sure what (KBNKW), and not knowing about not knowing (NKNK). The quantitative analysis showed that students exhibited greater accuracy in assessing their performance when they belonged to the categories KK, KNK, and KBNKW, while their accuracy was lower when they fell into the categories NKNK and NKK. In other words, students who had greater awareness of their level of knowledge were more accurate in predicting their scores compared to their peers, irrespective of their actual performance levels. The logistic regression model revealed a substantial increase in the likelihood of underperforming students overestimating their performance compared to their high-performing counterparts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
15.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills. Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed. Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices. One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge exploration among students: role of feedback, feeling of confidence, and academic motivation Self-regulated strategy development’s effectiveness: underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms Development of metacognitive monitoring and control skills in elementary school: a latent profile approach Metacognitive reflections on essentialism during the learning of the relationship between biology and the human race On the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory: inferential, direct access, or indirect access?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1