Bias scores did not improve over the school year, but school year level mattered: year 1 students became less overconfident while year 3 students improved their underconfidence¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2025: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Bias scores showed no statistically detectable change over time, and reflection support did not matter for bias. → Nederhand 2020 q3 i? Year level predicted bias and interacted with time: year 1 students became less overconfident, year 3 students improved their underconfidence. → Nederhand 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Nederhand 2020¶

Nederhand, M. L., Tabbers, H. K., Jongerling, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2020). Reflection on exam grades to improve calibration of secondary school students: a longitudinal study. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09233-9

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Three-level multilevel model of bias scores (signed estimate-minus-grade difference) in the French course across the school year, with intervention groups dummy-coded against Practice. The article reports no statistically detectable change in bias over time.

"results showed no statistically detectable change in bias scores over time, b = −0.03, t(8) = −0.60, p = .567, nor a statistically detectable random effect of bias scores over time,χ2(205) = 232.17, p = .094."

Nederhand 2020 (2)¶

Nederhand, M. L., Tabbers, H. K., Jongerling, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2020). Reflection on exam grades to improve calibration of secondary school students: a longitudinal study. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09233-9

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the same three-level bias model, Year was a statistically detectable predictor and interacted with Time. The article states "Students in year 1 showed more overconfidence than students in year 2 and year 3" and describes divergent improvement directions by year.

"Students in year 1 showed more overconfidence than students in year 2 and year 3. Furthermore, there was an interaction between Time and Year."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Overconfidence (bias) decreased from pretest to posttest across all groups including control, with no group differences — reports the opposite
• Students in the Reflection condition became more confident in their grade estimates over the school year, unlike students in the Practice and Grade comparison conditions — reports the opposite
• In Experiment 1, the feedback intervention reduced pre-task signed metacognitive bias (underconfidence) but the group difference did not persist at post-task — related
• Most preservice teachers were overconfident in the completeness of their fraction comparison explanations at both first draft and revision — related
• Providing grade estimates after each exam improved secondary students' calibration accuracy over a school year, regardless of the level of reflection support — related
• The level of reflection support (practice-only, grade comparison, or reflection prompts) did not differentially affect the improvement of secondary students' calibration accuracy over time — related
• Secondary students' French exam performance improved over the school year, but this improvement was not attributable to the intervention groups — related
• Grandiose narcissism predicted overconfidence in exam score predictions at both time points, while vulnerable narcissism predicted less overconfidence only at course start and optimism was unrelated — related