2025/11/09 by Samuel P. León, Anastasiya A. Lipnevich · 1 voice
Social Sciences · Decision Sciences · Neuroscience · #Student Assessment and Feedback #Psychometric Methodologies and Testing #Memory Processes and Influences
paper · doi:10.35542/osf.io/yv7dp_v2
openalex created_date 2025/11/09 · openalex publication_date 2025/11/09 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/14
Accurate self-assessment, or calibration, is a key component of students’ metacognitive moni-toring and self-regulated learning. This study examined calibration and confidence judgments across two high-stakes course exams (initial and make-up) using both continuous and group-based analyses. Undergraduate students in early childhood education completed exam 1 (n = 128), predicting their grade (0–10) and reporting confidence (1–5). Students who failed (n = 45) took a make-up exam one month later and repeated their self-assessment. In Exam 1, calibra-tion followed the classic pattern: low-performing students overestimated, mid-range students were most accurate, and high-performing students slightly underestimated. Among students who took the make-up exam, calibration improved and confidence increased, and these changes remained robust after controlling for regression-to-the-mean effects. Together, the findings show that performance-level calibration patterns persist under authentic assessment conditions but can improve through feedback and experience. They highlight short-term metacognitive plastic-ity and provide practical implications for supporting self-assessment accuracy in higher educa-tion.