In Experiment 2, making metacognitive predictions alone did not improve calibration, performance feedback was sufficient, and explicit metacognitive feedback added no significant benefit¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The key transition in absolute metacognitive bias occurred between the prediction-only group and the prediction-plus-performance-feedback group; adding metacognitive feedback produced no further significant reduction. → Ceri Ngai and Sam J. Gilbert 2026

Evidence¶

Ceri Ngai and Sam J. Gilbert 2026¶

Ceri Ngai and Sam J. Gilbert (2026). Metacognitive training facilitates optimal cognitive offloading. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-026-00714-0

q3 · i2 · causal · r3

Pairwise one-tailed t-tests across the additive four-group design in Experiment 2 (N = 416). Significant reductions appeared for Group 1 versus Group 3 (d = 0.47), Group 2 versus Group 3 (d = 0.60), and Group 2 versus Group 4 (d = 0.51); Group 1 versus Group 2 and Group 3 versus Group 4 were not significant.

"Second, making metacognitive predictions alone did not significantly improve metacognitive calibration (Group 1 versus Group 2). Third, although performance feedback was sufficient to improve metacognitive calibration (Group 3 versus Group 2), metacognitive feedback (i.e. explicitly highlighting over- or underconfidence) did not lead to any significant additional effect (Group 4 versus Group 3)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Self-Regulation — 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
• In Experiment 2, absolute metacognitive bias decreased linearly across the four additive intervention groups, and the full intervention group was significantly less biased than control — related
• In Experiment 1, the feedback group showed significantly lower absolute (unsigned) metacognitive bias than the no-feedback group at both pre-task and post-task — related
• In one 2×2 experiment with 120 undergraduates, an Assessment-Performance Calibration Activity (APCA) gave the most accurate self-assessment and least overconfidence, and adding a feedback-literacy script did not improve calibration further — related
• In Experiment 2, signed metacognitive bias scores showed no significant group effect or linear trend, failing to replicate the Experiment 1 signed-bias finding — related