Students tend to rely on non-diagnostic cues when judging their own performance, resulting in inaccurate judgments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The article (a conceptual and methodological framework with an explorative study) states in its background, citing Bol et al. (2010), Hacker et al. (2008), and Thiede et al. (2010), that students tend to rely on non-diagnostic cues such as text length, interest, or study effort rather than diagnostic performance cues, resulting in inaccurate judgments. → van de Pol 2024

Evidence¶

van de Pol 2024¶

van de Pol, J., & Oudman, S. (2024). Teachers' judgment accuracy of students' monitoring skills: a conceptual and methodological framework and explorative study. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09349-8

q2 · i? · associational · r2

The article, a conceptual and methodological framework with an explorative study of teachers' judgments, does not test this itself; in its background it attributes the pattern to prior research on students' cue-utilization when judging their own performance, naming text length, topic interest, and study effort as non-diagnostic cues students use.

"When judging their performance, students tend to rely on non-diagnostic cues such as text length, interest in the text topic, or study effort instead of diagnostic performance cues such as their ability to explain the meaning of a text, resulting in inaccurate judgments"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Performance cues were found most diagnostic for students' reading comprehension performance — related
• Learners partly use example length as a cue when evaluating their self-generated examples — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Teachers' self-reported cue utilization attributes are not significantly correlated with their monitoring accuracy (Experiment 2). — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Teachers judging student performance mostly use performance cues and, to a lesser extent, student cues — related
• When making accurate judgments, teachers used diagnostic cues to a greater extent, but also used non-diagnostic cues (IQ and reading self-concept) — related
• Postdictions of performance are typically more accurate than predictions — related
• Subjective effort ratings are affected by invalid cues and only weakly valid as cues to judged learning outcomes — related
• Impression narratives rely on weakly diagnostic suspicion heuristics such as response speed, fluency, and perceived scriptedness — related
• Teachers are largely aware which cues are diagnostic, but often mistakenly treat students' interest in the text topic as diagnostic — related
• Teachers often rely on informal impressions rather than systematic, theory-grounded diagnostic procedures when judging students' SRL — related
• Perceived effort ratings are metacognitive judgments based on heuristic cue processing and prone to bias — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Students use invested mental effort as a cue when judging their learning, and self-rated mental effort is negatively related to judgments of learning — related