Limits...
Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring.

Eva KW, Regehr G - Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract (2010)

Bottom Line: Despite these expectations, a considerable literature in the domain of self-assessment has questioned the ability of the self-regulating professional to enact this process effectively.These studies reveal that, despite poor correlations between performance and self-assessments (consistent with what is typically seen in the self-assessment literature), participant performance was strongly related to several measures of self-monitoring including: the decision to answer or defer responding to a question, the amount of time required to make that decision to answer or defer, and the confidence expressed in an answer when provided.This apparent divergence between poor overall self-assessment and effective self-monitoring is considered in terms of how the findings might inform our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms yielding both self-monitoring judgments and self-assessments and how that understanding might be used to better direct education and learning efforts.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. kevin.eva@ubc.ca

ABSTRACT
Many models of professional self-regulation call upon individual practitioners to take responsibility both for identifying the limits of their own skills and for redressing their identified limits through continuing professional development activities. Despite these expectations, a considerable literature in the domain of self-assessment has questioned the ability of the self-regulating professional to enact this process effectively. In response, authors have recently suggested that the construction of self-assessment as represented in the self-regulation literature is, itself, problematic. In this paper we report a pair of studies that examine the relationship between self-assessment (a global judgment of one's ability in a particular domain) and self-monitoring (a moment-by-moment awareness of the likelihood that one maintains the skill/knowledge to act in a particular situation). These studies reveal that, despite poor correlations between performance and self-assessments (consistent with what is typically seen in the self-assessment literature), participant performance was strongly related to several measures of self-monitoring including: the decision to answer or defer responding to a question, the amount of time required to make that decision to answer or defer, and the confidence expressed in an answer when provided. This apparent divergence between poor overall self-assessment and effective self-monitoring is considered in terms of how the findings might inform our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms yielding both self-monitoring judgments and self-assessments and how that understanding might be used to better direct education and learning efforts.

Show MeSH
Flow-chart illustrating the experimental procedure and summarizing the dependent variables used as indicators of self-assessment and self-monitoring
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3139875&req=5

Fig1: Flow-chart illustrating the experimental procedure and summarizing the dependent variables used as indicators of self-assessment and self-monitoring

Mentions: A computer-based platform was developed to present each of the 60 questions in turn. The basic design was consistent with that of Eva and Regehr (2007) with modifications made as illustrated in Fig. 1. Participants were told they would be asked to answer a series of trivia questions and that a correction factor would be imposed such that the number of incorrect responses would be subtracted from the number of correct responses to determine their total score. As such, they were told they should only answer a question if they felt confident in their ability to do so accurately.Fig. 1


Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring.

Eva KW, Regehr G - Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract (2010)

Flow-chart illustrating the experimental procedure and summarizing the dependent variables used as indicators of self-assessment and self-monitoring
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3139875&req=5

Fig1: Flow-chart illustrating the experimental procedure and summarizing the dependent variables used as indicators of self-assessment and self-monitoring
Mentions: A computer-based platform was developed to present each of the 60 questions in turn. The basic design was consistent with that of Eva and Regehr (2007) with modifications made as illustrated in Fig. 1. Participants were told they would be asked to answer a series of trivia questions and that a correction factor would be imposed such that the number of incorrect responses would be subtracted from the number of correct responses to determine their total score. As such, they were told they should only answer a question if they felt confident in their ability to do so accurately.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: Despite these expectations, a considerable literature in the domain of self-assessment has questioned the ability of the self-regulating professional to enact this process effectively.These studies reveal that, despite poor correlations between performance and self-assessments (consistent with what is typically seen in the self-assessment literature), participant performance was strongly related to several measures of self-monitoring including: the decision to answer or defer responding to a question, the amount of time required to make that decision to answer or defer, and the confidence expressed in an answer when provided.This apparent divergence between poor overall self-assessment and effective self-monitoring is considered in terms of how the findings might inform our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms yielding both self-monitoring judgments and self-assessments and how that understanding might be used to better direct education and learning efforts.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. kevin.eva@ubc.ca

ABSTRACT
Many models of professional self-regulation call upon individual practitioners to take responsibility both for identifying the limits of their own skills and for redressing their identified limits through continuing professional development activities. Despite these expectations, a considerable literature in the domain of self-assessment has questioned the ability of the self-regulating professional to enact this process effectively. In response, authors have recently suggested that the construction of self-assessment as represented in the self-regulation literature is, itself, problematic. In this paper we report a pair of studies that examine the relationship between self-assessment (a global judgment of one's ability in a particular domain) and self-monitoring (a moment-by-moment awareness of the likelihood that one maintains the skill/knowledge to act in a particular situation). These studies reveal that, despite poor correlations between performance and self-assessments (consistent with what is typically seen in the self-assessment literature), participant performance was strongly related to several measures of self-monitoring including: the decision to answer or defer responding to a question, the amount of time required to make that decision to answer or defer, and the confidence expressed in an answer when provided. This apparent divergence between poor overall self-assessment and effective self-monitoring is considered in terms of how the findings might inform our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms yielding both self-monitoring judgments and self-assessments and how that understanding might be used to better direct education and learning efforts.

Show MeSH