Students' JoL ratings became more consistent over time and evolved from under-rating to over-rating to accurate judgement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Variance among a student's subsequent JoLs decreased over the intervention, indicating increased consistency of self-rating. → Graf 2026 q2 i? Early JoLs primarily under-rated mastery, mid-study JoLs tended to over-rate, and late JoLs were mostly accurate; students who rated low tended to underestimate. → Graf 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Graf 2026¶

Graf, L., Bassner, P., Anzinger, M., Dietrich, F., Krusche, S., & Poquet, O. (2026). Interactive learning dashboards: rethinking learning visualisations as engagement tools. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-14082-1

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Process analysis of 482 submitted JoLs: variance of each three subsequent JoL ratings per student was averaged over students for beginning, middle and end time windows, showing a calibration process over time.

"As shown in Fig. 3a, the variance among subse-quent JoLs submitted by a student decreased over time, meaning consistency in how the students rated themselves increased."

Graf 2026 (2)¶

Graf, L., Bassner, P., Anzinger, M., Dietrich, F., Krusche, S., & Poquet, O. (2026). Interactive learning dashboards: rethinking learning visualisations as engagement tools. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-14082-1

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Figure 3b and Table 1 distribution analysis of JoL-minus-system-rating discrepancies by competency; the article adds "Table 1 shows that students who rated their learning low, tended to under-estimate their learning".

"For the first two competencies, i.e. the JoLs made early in the study, students primarily under-rate their mastery. For the last two competencies, i.e. JoLs in the later study period, most of the ratings were accurate."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Self Assessment Accuracy Is Low Without Training — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• JoL–mastery accuracy trajectories over the five weeks rose in the elicit condition, declined in the none condition, and were mixed in the tell condition — related
• Students using the eliciting agent showed JoL ratings correlated with system learning metrics, strongest for mastery — related
• Most students submitted JoLs out of curiosity about the system rating, often without attending to the LA graphs, and reported behaviour change more from JoL than from the agent — related
• Tell and no-agent conditions showed no significant JoL–confidence correlations, with mixed results for progress and mastery — related
• Delayed JOL bias: multiple text readers are underconfident, rereaders overconfident at one day, and single readers overconfident at one week — related