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
Mean proportion correct as a function of whether participant chose to answer during round 1 or to defer answering until round 2 and time taken to make the decision in study 1
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3139875&req=5

Fig2: Mean proportion correct as a function of whether participant chose to answer during round 1 or to defer answering until round 2 and time taken to make the decision in study 1

Mentions: To determine whether participants were showing appropriate caution and slowing down at the borders of their competence, we calculated the amount of time it took to decide whether or not to answer a given question in relation to the accuracy of the eventual response. If participants are slowing appropriately at the edge of their competence, then for questions that participants chose to answer on the first round, slower decisions (to answer) should be associated with lower accuracy relative to faster decisions. Similarly, for questions that participants decided NOT to answer in the first round, slower decisions (to pass) should be associated with HIGHER accuracy relative to faster decisions. The data confirmed this pattern, again replicating the findings reported by Eva and Regehr (2007). Figure 2 elaborates on this pattern by graphing mean proportion correct as a function of response time (with response time bundles selected to roughly equate the number of observations in each column) and whether participants chose to answer on round 1 or deferred their response to round 2.Fig. 2


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

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

Mean proportion correct as a function of whether participant chose to answer during round 1 or to defer answering until round 2 and time taken to make the decision in study 1
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig2: Mean proportion correct as a function of whether participant chose to answer during round 1 or to defer answering until round 2 and time taken to make the decision in study 1
Mentions: To determine whether participants were showing appropriate caution and slowing down at the borders of their competence, we calculated the amount of time it took to decide whether or not to answer a given question in relation to the accuracy of the eventual response. If participants are slowing appropriately at the edge of their competence, then for questions that participants chose to answer on the first round, slower decisions (to answer) should be associated with lower accuracy relative to faster decisions. Similarly, for questions that participants decided NOT to answer in the first round, slower decisions (to pass) should be associated with HIGHER accuracy relative to faster decisions. The data confirmed this pattern, again replicating the findings reported by Eva and Regehr (2007). Figure 2 elaborates on this pattern by graphing mean proportion correct as a function of response time (with response time bundles selected to roughly equate the number of observations in each column) and whether participants chose to answer on round 1 or deferred their response to round 2.Fig. 2

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