The Monitoring Exercise protected against overconfidence in the second exam score prediction but did not affect exam scores¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Students who completed the Monitoring Exercise were underconfident at t=2, unlike the overconfident control group, but their exam scores did not improve. → de Bruin 2017
Evidence¶
de Bruin 2017¶
de Bruin, A. B. H., Kok, E. M., Lobbestael, J., & de Grip, A. (2017). The impact of an online tool for monitoring and regulating learning at university: overconfidence, learning strategy, and personality. Metacognition and Learning, 12, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9159-5
q3 · i? · causal · r2
2x2 ANCOVA on absolute accuracy at t=2 covarying t=0 accuracy; the ME main effect was not significant, F(1,124) = 2.29, p = .133, and control-group overconfidence (M = .45) differed from zero, t(27) = 2.17, p = .039, while the ME group's accuracy did not.
"Those who only did the Monitoring Exercise were underconfident, whereas those in the control group were overconfident."
de Bruin 2017 (2)¶
de Bruin, A. B. H., Kok, E. M., Lobbestael, J., & de Grip, A. (2017). The impact of an online tool for monitoring and regulating learning at university: overconfidence, learning strategy, and personality. Metacognition and Learning, 12, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9159-5
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Multilevel exam-score analysis found no main effect of the Monitoring Exercise; mean exam scores were 6.35 in both control and ME conditions on the 10-point scale.
"Apparently, the Monitoring and Regulation Strategy affected students’ study behavior resulting in an increased exam score, but the Monitoring Exercise did not (neither in isolation nor in combination with the MRS)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A Monitoring and Regulation Strategy delivered online increased university students' exam scores, whereas the Monitoring Exercise alone showed no significant effect — 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
- Exam score predictions decreased from the start to the end of the course for all performance quartiles, leaving poor performers overconfident and high performers underconfident — 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
- Monitoring accuracy in exam score predictions and in key-term definition judgments during the Monitoring Exercise were uncorrelated, suggesting different cues underlie the two measures — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
monitoring-exercise-reduced-overconfidence-only |
title |
The Monitoring Exercise protected against overconfidence in the second exam score prediction but did not affect exam scores |
description |
The Monitoring Exercise protected against overconfidence in the second exam score prediction but did not affect exam scores |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — de-bruin-2017, de-bruin-2017-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.