The Illusion of Knowing in College: A Field Study of Students with a Teacher-Centered Educational Past Research Reports The Illusion of Knowing in College: A Field Study of Students with a Teacher-Centered Educational Past Maura A. E. Pilotti* a, Khadija El Alaoui a, Huda Mulhem a, Halah A. Al Kuhayli a [a] College of Science and Human Studies, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al Khobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Abstract In the present study, the tendency to overestimate performance (illusion of knowing) was examined in college students whose educational past experiences had emphasized verbatim learning. Female students enrolled in core curriculum classes were sampled. Classes taught by the same instructor were randomly assigned to a self-assessment practice condition, where students predicted their test and class performance and were asked to reflect on discrepancies between predictions and actual performance, or to a control condition. At the end of the semester, irrespective of condition, as performance declined on the final test, predictions of final test grades became more inflated, but less confident, indicating that students were aware of their own deficiencies. Overall, students in the practice condition displayed not only greater prediction accuracy, but also greater final test performance than students in the control condition. Practice, however, benefited the most self-assessment accuracy of students whose final test grades were just above the passing grade. Although the responses to self- assessment practice of students with a teacher-centered educational past were largely similar to the responses of students from Western countries reported in the extant literature, differences in impact and meaning could be inferred. Keywords: self-assessment, performance, culture Europe's Journal of Psychology, 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807, https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 Received: 2019-02-13. Accepted: 2019-05-02. Published (VoR): 2019-12-19. Handling Editor: Frederic Vallee-Tourangeau, Kingston University, London, UK *Corresponding author at: Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, P.O. Box 1664, Al Khobar 31952, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Tel: +966 5351 66572. E-mail: mpilotti@pmu.edu.sa This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Metacognitive monitoring refers to activities that gather information about one’s own knowledge and skills in re- lation to the demands of a task (e.g., a test, a reading assignment, etc.), and then use it to adapt one’s actions to achieve desired performance standards (Koriat, Ackerman, Adiv, Lockl, & Schneider, 2014). According to this view of metacognition, two conditions must be met by learners in their pursuit of desired performance: First and foremost, learners must have a realistic grasp of their knowledge, understanding, and competence in relation to the demands of the situation (e.g., a test). Thus, the illusion of knowing phenomenon, which is a common judg- ment of overestimation of one’s knowledge, understanding, and/or competence is to be prevented at all costs (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Glenberg, Wikinson, & Epstein, 1982). Second, learners must be willing and able to use strategically information about their knowledge, understanding, and competence to modulate thought and action during learning and testing (Avhustiuk, Pasichnyk, & Kalamazh, 2018). This model of metacognition, according to which increasing students’ awareness of their knowledge in relation to the specific demands of a situation aids achievement, informs several activities that spontaneously take Europe's Journal of Psychology ejop.psychopen.eu | 1841-0413 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://ejop.psychopen.eu/ https://ejop.psychopen.eu/ https://www.psychopen.eu/ place in college classes around the globe. Consider, for instance, the instructors’ practice of reviewing the con- tent of a test or assignment in class after having graded it, as well as students’ inquiries about their grades. The model has also generated targeted-interventions whose effects have yielded mixed results. An example is the practice of asking students to predict their exam scores before and after tests, which is later followed by a com- parison of predicted and actual performance (Achacoso, 2004). This practice is firmly rooted in the belief that inaccurate judgments about knowledge and capabilities are likely to interfere with students’ recognition of their deficiencies and needs for improvement (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003). As a result, it relies on a set of sequential assumptions: First, students who experience the illusion of knowing will likely overestimate their performance and feel confident about their overestimations, only to discover afterward that they were wrong. Second, discrepancies between predicted and actual performance will make students aware of what they do and do not know. Third, such awareness will lead them to make needed adjustments to their learning. It is reasonable to ask whether these assumptions are supported by unequivocal facts. Evidence exists that predictions of test performance may improve students’ accuracy of self-assessment (Dunlosky, Serra, Matvey, & Rawson, 2005), but not always performance (Miller & Geraci, 2011a). In addition, students’ accuracy of self-assessment decreases as their performance declines (Jee, Wiley, & Griffin, 2006; Pallier et al., 2002). Namely, the most vulnerable students in the class are those that overestimate their per- formance the most (Bol & Hacker, 2001; Hacker, Bol, Horgan, & Rakow, 2000; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). How- ever, Miller and Geraci (2011b), who differentiated functional overconfidence (e.g., predicting a grade higher than the one received on a test), from subjective overconfidence (e.g., being certain that one’s prediction is cor- rect), found that vulnerable students place little confidence in their inflated estimates (Miller & Geraci, 2011b). Thus, low-performing students are not “blissfully incompetent” (Williams, 2004), “unskilled” and “unaware” (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008), as it has been claimed, but rather their overestimates appear to be a form of wishful thinking that temporarily shields their self-concept from adverse events. Yet, evi- dence mostly comes from the Western world. The cultural environments in which people have been raised may shape learning in different ways, thereby pro- moting some abilities over others (Hofstede, 1986; Lundeberg, Fox, Brown, & Elbedour, 2000). For instance, a culture that relies on oral transmission of knowledge is likely to promote verbatim learning in its youngsters, and thus enhance their verbatim memory skills relative to those of young Westerners (Rogoff, 1990). In such a cul- ture, older adults are often given the key role of transmitting knowledge, including cultural traditions and history. Not surprisingly, a teacher-centered pedagogy (Stipek, 1991; Weimer, 2002), which emphasizes verbatim learn- ing and sees the teacher as the authority ultimately responsible for assessment, comes to shape formal educa- tion. In a nutshell, this is the history of primary and secondary education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Al Khazim, 2003; Al Lily, 2011; Al Mezani, 2010; Günther, 2006; Hamdan, 2014; Mahrous & Ahmed, 2010). Al- though verbatim learning is largely inadequate for successful performance in college, it is a habit that is resist- ant to change. Students revert to it as they find it a comforting escape from the more nebulous problem-solving approach of higher education. Through the lenses of this form of teacher-centered education, there is no uncer- tainty regarding what constitutes successful performance (Oettingen, 1995; Weimer, 2002). Performance attain- ment is defined by students’ ability to repeat the words uttered by the instructor or written in textbooks (Säljö, 1981). The principal source of assessment is the instructor who is regarded as “the sage on the stage.” Obvi- ously, when faced with learning tasks of hundreds of pages, students cannot rely entirely on a reproductive ap- proach to learning (Biggs, 1976), which is their preferred mode. Nevertheless, they resist fully exploring a more reflective and active approach, including organizing and linking new to known materials (Säljö, 1981). For in- The Illusion of Knowing 790 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ stance, students may mention selected facts, and describe discrete contents, but rarely venture into reorganiz- ing contents or attempt to go beyond the information given (Entwistle, 1979). Not surprisingly, disaster strikes when this habit of information processing is applied to prepare for tests that require not just retention and local comprehension of key concepts, but also application, analysis, evaluation, and generation of original work (Bloom, 1976). Even then, students may resist abandoning their preferred mode of processing entirely (Fareh, 2010; McLellan, 2012). The habit of faithful reproduction is also selectively reinforced in particular classes, such as Arabic and Islamic Studies (Douglass, & Shaikh, 2004) and Oral Communication, where verbatim learning is often seen as an efficient (i.e., quick and reliable) strategy of information acquisition and retention. Rationale of the Present Field Study The present study is based on the metacognitive model described above, according to which self-regulation of thought and action for the purpose of optimizing learning or testing is dependent on students’ ability to gather realistic information about the knowledge and skills they possess. Thus, to induce metacognitive awareness (Flavell, 1979) of what is known and what is not known, students are asked to predict their test and class per- formance (functional confidence) and report their degree of trust in the predictions made (subjective confi- dence) at four different times during the semester. They are also required to examine their predictions against the grades they actually receive and reflect on any discrepancies. Students with a teacher-centered educational past offer an uncharted ground for testing the power of recurrent and explicit self-assessment on metacognitive awareness and performance as they habitually rely on the in- structor for self-assessment. It is hypothesized that in such students self-assessment practice, relative to a con- dition without practice, will improve metacognitive awareness and thus estimates of final test performance made at the end of the semester. Based on the findings of Miller and Geraci (2011b), students with less than desirable performance are expected to benefit the most from self-assessment practice in terms of improved metacognitive awareness rather than actual performance. However, such students in KSA may also be those that most firmly rely on verbatim learning and on the assessment provided by the instructor (i.e., the expert). Thus, students who routinely treat the instructor as the principal source of appraisal may discount the feedback provided by explicit self-assessment, rendering self-assessment practice moot. Namely, a pedagogical tool, which has been proven to be effective in the Western world, may not be equally effective in the Middle East (Mahrous & Ahmed, 2010; Smith, 2006). Alternatively, its novelty may grab students’ attention, leading them to recognize the usefulness of the information it provides. As a new gadget whose utility is suddenly recognized due to compulsory use, self-assessment practice may induce a change not only in metacognitive awareness, but also in performance through new habit formation. Additionally, students may be more or less sensitive to an intervention intended to enhance metacognitive awareness depending on the adverse experiences they en- countered in college. Consider that time constraints, poor academic background, and limited course-relevant experiences and skills have been reported to be key sources of withdrawal from courses (Hayward, 2003; Lee & Choi, 2011; Poling, 1979). Thus, the number of college classes students completed compared to those they attempted (i.e., class completion ratio) can be treated as an index of experiences in which performance did not match expectations. Studies have shown that, in addition to interventions that encourage or require students to use support services (Gordanier, Hauk, & Sankaran, 2018), simply reminding students of their standing in a course can improve performance and thus reduce course withdrawal rates (Chen & Okediji, 2014; Smith, White, Kuzyk, & Tierney, 2018). It is reasonable to expect responses to a technique that is intended to promote self-understanding, such as self-assessment practice, to vary with students’ class completion rate. Namely, we Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 791 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ predict that smaller class completion ratios may be associated with students’ increased sensitivity to overt self- assessment practice, as such practice in class both encourages and normalizes the task of understanding one’s current situation. If functional and subjective confidence ratings are considered local judgments, it is reasonable to ask whether they are informed by broader traits, such as general self-efficacy. General self-efficacy refers to students’ un- derlying confidence to perform well across diverse tasks and situations. It is considered a motivational trait (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000) positively correlated with task completion rates (Eden, 1984, 1988; Pajares, 1996), persistence (Bandura, 1977; Pajares, 1997), motivation and engagement (Bandura, 1989; Bandura & Schunk, 1981). In the Western world, some evidence exists that it can predict functional confidence (Avhustiuk et al., 2018), but evidence of its ability to predict academic achievement is mixed (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993; Wilhite, 1990; Zeegers, 2004). In students with a teacher-centered educational past, general self-efficacy may predict functional and subjective confidence ratings if such local judgments are the reflection of a motivation to change established learning habits. It may even predict performance if motiva- tion has led to action. In addition, general self-efficacy may specifically modulate students’ responses to self- assessment practice so that students with varying confidence in their abilities are more or less sensitive to the practice of estimating grades. Method Participants The participants were 685 female college students at a University in the Eastern Province of KSA. Participants reported Arabic as their first language and English as their second language. For university admission, students had demonstrated English language competence through standardized English proficiency tests. Students completed primary and secondary schooling in KSA. They were all commuters from nearby towns or cities who were enrolled in a Core Curriculum class, which offered practice in basic academic skills (e.g., writing, speak- ing, reasoning, etc.) across a variety of topics or focused on a specific domain of knowledge, such as history, Arabic culture and religion, and psychology. If a student was enrolled in more than one of the selected Core Curriculum classes, withdrew, or missed the midterm or the final test, her data were not included in the current sample (12.51%). Weimer’s dimensions differentiating educational approaches (Weimer, 2002) were used to classify students as possessing a teacher-centered educational past and habits of information acquisition reli- ant on verbatim learning. Due to gender-segregation rules, a corresponding male sample was unattainable. Materials and Procedure Convenience sampling (i.e., consent of the instructor, and minimal or absent overlap of students) was used to select 32 classes. For each instructor, sections of the same class were randomly assigned to either a self-as- sessment practice condition (n = 337 students) or a control condition (n = 348 students) to ensure that instruc- tors would have half of the classes assigned to practice and the other half to control. Instructors were either local hires or foreigners, but all possessed graduate degrees obtained outside KSA. In Table 1, the practice condition involved 4 phases in which students estimated their class grade (phase 1 and phase 3) as well as their grade on the midterm (phase 2) and final exams (phase 4), before and after each test. The Illusion of Knowing 792 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ As per institutional guidelines, all classes required a midterm test and a final test, which 1) included a fair mix- ture of short-answer and multiple-choice questions, and 2) assessed not only retention and understanding of key information, but also use of knowledge, such as application, analysis, and evaluation (see Bloom’s taxono- my; Bloom, 1976). Table 1 Procedure of the Field Experiment and Descriptive Statistics (Means and Standard Errors of the Mean) by Phase and Condition Variable Practice Condition Control Condition Phase 1 Estimation of Class Grades Accuracy 2.39 (0.50) — Confidence 2.50 (0.05) — Phase 2 Midterm Test Grades 84.19 (0.85) 83.17 (0.84) Estimation of Midterm Test Grades Prospective Accuracy 3.84 (0.87) — Prospective Confidence 2.11 (0.05) — Retrospective Accuracy 0.83 (0.77) — Retrospective Confidence 1.96 (0.06) — Phase 3 Estimation of Class Grades Accuracy 1.85 (0.43) — Confidence 2.10 (0.06) — Phase 4 Final Test Grades 86.75 (0.77) 82.56 (0.76) Estimation of Final Test Grades Prospective Accuracy 2.33 (0.70) 4.69 (0.69) Prospective Confidence 2.23 (0.06) 2.28 (0.06) Retrospective Accuracy 0.92 (0.68) 3.57 (0.67) Retrospective Confidence 2.13 (0.06) 2.28 (0.06) End of Semester Class Grades 89.06 (0.52) 88.17 (0.51) Phase 1 was initiated during the first 2 weeks of the semester. Students assigned to the practice condition were given a sheet on which they were to predict their class grade on a scale from 0 to 100, as well as to express their confidence in the prediction made on a scale from 0 (not at all confident) to 4 (extremely confident). All students, irrespective of the condition to which they were assigned, completed the New General Self-Efficacy (NGSE; Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001) inventory. The NGSE required students to report the extent to which they agreed with each of eight statements of general confidence in one’s abilities on a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Phase 2 of the practice condition was implemented during the administration of midterm tests. Before starting the midterm test and after having completed it, each student predicted her performance. For both prospective and retrospective estimates, the student expressed her confidence in the prediction made. Instructors dis- cussed the content of the midterm test upon returning it to students to ensure adequate performance feedback. Phase 3 of the practice condition was administered during the last 2 weeks of the semester. Students were Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 793 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ again asked to predict their class grade as well as express their subjective confidence in the prediction made. Estimates and confidence ratings of phases 1–3, which were made on separate sheets of paper, were returned to students within a week so that information was available for review before additional predictions were re- quired. Students were encouraged to reflect on discrepancies between predictions and actual performance, and, where needed, to consider remedies either by themselves or with the aid of the instructor. They were in- formed that explicit and periodic assessment of their performance followed by self-reflection would offer them the opportunity to understand what they acquired and how they acquired it in reference to the demands posed either by a specific activity or by the collection of activities that a class placed on them. As predictions of class grades could be verified only at the end of the semester, students were encouraged to check the running aver- age of all completed activities on their course management system to evaluate the extent to which their predic- tions matched their actual performance. Phase 4 was implemented during the administration of the final tests. Each student predicted her performance on the final test, as well as expressed her confidence in the prediction made before and after the test. To minimize the temptation of aspirational predictions, in all phases, students were reminded to report what they reasonably believed to be their grade at the time of the inquiry. They were explicitly discouraged to report what they wished their grade to be. As the semester moved closer to its end, all students were expected to have increased their knowledge of the demands of the class in which they were enrolled (i.e., as assessed by differences between phase 1 and phase 3), and of the more specific demands of its tests (i.e., as assessed by differences between phase 2 and phase 4). Thus, the control condition, where students did not predict their grades in phases 1–3, served to offer a “business-as-usual” setting, against which the effects of self-assessment practice could be measured. As in the practice condition, however, instructors discussed the content of the midterm test upon returning it to stu- dents to ensure adequate performance feedback (see Mahrous & Ahmed, 2010). Furthermore, students as- signed to the control condition predicted their grades and reported their confidence in their predictions during phase 4 so that functional and subjective confidence estimates expressed without any practice could be com- pared with those made in the condition where estimates were a recursive exercise. Results All results reported in this section are considered significant at the .05 level. The first set of analyses involved comparisons between control and practice conditions to assess initial baseline equivalence. Thus, at the start of the semester, the grade-point average (GPA) values of the students assigned to the control condition (M = 3.10, SEM = 0.03) and practice condition (M = 3.09, SEM = 0.03) were compared. They were found not to be different, F < 1, ns. Because GPA represents a global criterion, subject to influences from a large array of fac- tors, completion rate (i.e., number of courses completed over number of courses attempted) as well as general self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), a motivational factor that might impact performance, were also examined. Self- efficacy, measured by the New General Self-Efficacy inventory (NGSE; Chen et al., 2001), did not differ be- tween control (M = 4.30, SEM = 0.02) and practice (M = 4.36, SEM = 0.02), F(1, 683) = 3.31, p = .069. Similar- ly, class completion rates were not different between control (M = 0.95, SEM = 0.01) and practice (M = 0.94, SEM = 0.01), F(1, 683) = 1.99, p = .159. In compliance with the guidelines of the Office for Human Research Protections of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, data collected were entered into a database in which each student was assigned a The Illusion of Knowing 794 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ random number. Thus, upon completion of the study, records were devoid of identifying information. The data analyzed involved those of students for whom the midterm, final test, class grades, and functional and subjec- tive confidence ratings were available. Prediction accuracy (i.e., functional confidence) was measured as a dif- ference between estimated grades and actual test or class grades. Thus, a value of 0 represented perfectly accurate self-assessment, a value greater than 0 indicated an overestimation and a value below 0 represented an underestimation. Predictions of Final Test Grades: Students’ Accuracy of Estimation and Confidence At the end of the semester, predictions made by students who practiced self-assessment were expected to be more accurate and confident than those of students assigned to the control condition. Performance might follow suit if self-assessment practice affected students’ study activities. However, because knowledge of a test in- creased after having taken it, all students were expected to be more accurate and confident in their predictions after having completed the final test. To test these predictions, a 2 timing of prediction (prospective and retro- spective) X 2 condition (control and practice) mixed factorial ANOVA was conducted on functional confidence (i.e., accuracy) and subjective confidence of estimation of final test grades. Descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 1. Retrospective estimations were more accurate than prospective estimations, F(1, 683) = 33.64, MSE = 16.36, p < .001, ηp2 = .047. As illustrated in Figure 1, estimations in the practice condition were superior to those of the control condition, F(1, 683) = 7.04, MSE = 304.45, p = .008, ηp2 = .010 (interaction: F < 1, ns). Subjective confidence in estimated values, however, was not sensitive to either condition or timing of prediction (Fs ≤ 2.34, p ≥ .127). Figure 1. Mean prospective and retrospective prediction accuracy (left) and subjective confidence (right) of final test grades as a function of condition. Standard errors of the mean are represented by the error bars attached to each column. A 2 condition (control and practice) X 2 test (midterm and final exam) mixed factorial ANOVA on students’ grades indicated that not only prediction accuracy, but also overall performance was higher in the practice than in the control condition, F(1, 683) = 6.65, MSE = 348.96, p = .001, ηp2 = .010. No significant differences between tests were observed, F(1, 683) = 3.01, p = .069. Yet, a significant interaction suggested a more complex pat- tern, F(1, 683) = 8.81, MSE = 98.24, p = .003, ηp2 = .013 (see Figure 2). Tests of simple effects indicated that students’ final test performance was higher in the practice than in the control condition, t(683) = 3.87, p < .001. Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 795 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ If predictions of final grades reflected the impact of self-assessment practice on students’ test performance, the absence of a difference between conditions in midterm test grades (t < 1, ns) indicated that explicit self-assess- ment required time before it could be beneficial to performance. Figure 2. Midterm and final grades as a function of condition. Standard errors of the mean are represented by the error bars attached to each column. Predictions of Class Grades: Students’ Accuracy of Estimation and Confidence Predictions of class grades (see Table 1) were considered more complex than those involving test grades as they would require students to combine estimates of the outcomes of an array of activities carried out during an entire semester. Nevertheless, as students’ knowledge of class demands improved from the beginning (phase 1) to the end of the semester (phase 3), predictions in the practice condition were expected to be more accu- rate and confident. A one-way ANOVA indicated that accuracy did not change, F(1, 336) = 2.43, p = .120, from phase 1 to phase 3. However, subjective confidence declined, F(1, 336) = 42.15, MSE = .63, p < .001, ηp2 = .111, suggesting that increasing knowledge of class demands made students less likely to trust their esti- mates. Consistent with the null finding regarding prediction accuracy, a one-way ANOVA on class grades indi- cated that performance in the practice and control condition did not differ, F(1, 683) = 1.49, p = .223. In our study, class grades not only combined performance evaluations from multiple sources (e.g., tests and assignments), but also received less clearly targeted feedback (Mahrous & Ahmed, 2010), thereby being more difficult to estimate than final test grades. According to students, predictions of final test grades could benefit from the objective feedback obtained from the midterm, whereas predictions of class grades on phase 3 had to rely in part on the running average of all completed activities on the course management system. Running averages were considered by students less informative than the feedback gathered from estimating midterm performance and completing the midterm. The nebulous feedback of class grades appeared only to have made students more cautious. Indeed, as self-assessment practice increased from phase 1 to phase 3, it had no visi- ble impact on the accuracy of estimation of class grades or on actual grades, but it promoted less confidence in the estimates made. The Illusion of Knowing 796 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Prediction Accuracy and Subjective Confidence as a Function of Performance Level and Condition Regression analyses were conducted to assess whether high and low performing students’ functional and sub- jective confidence would be differentially sensitive to self-assessment practice (see Table 2). In these analyses, condition (control and practice), performance (final test grades) and the interaction term served as predictors. Performance, which was treated as a continuous variable, was centered on its mean value (Field, 2009). Retro- spective ratings of final test grades and related confidence served as the outcome variables because they pro- vided a stringent test of the impact of self-assessment practice above and beyond the knowledge of class and test demands that would be normally acquired by students at the end of the semester. Table 2 Regression Analyses of Retrospective Prediction Accuracy and Subjective Confidence of Final Test Grades as a Function of Condition, Performance, and Interaction Predictor B SE Beta t p Prediction Accuracy Constant +1.956 0.421 Condition +0.283 0.599 +0.011 +0.47 .636 Performance* −0.700 0.021 −0.801 −32.87 <.001 Interaction* +0.080 0.021 +0.090 +3.74 <.001 Subjective Confidence Constant +2.345 0.058 Condition* −0.260 0.082 −0.117 −3.18 .002 Performance* +0.025 0.003 +0.319 +8.51 <.001 Interaction* −0.006 0.003 −0.076 −2.04 .042 Note. Prediction Accuracy (Functional Confidence): R = 0.79. Subjective Confidence: R = 0.32. *Significant contribution of predictor to dependent variable. Performance contributed to the accuracy of retrospective predictions (see top half of Table 2), indicating that predictions changed from liberal (i.e., overestimation) to conservative (i.e., underestimation) as performance in- creased. The significant interaction, however, revealed that estimation accuracy benefited from practice selec- tively, depending on the students’ performance level. The same regression analysis performed on students’ subjective confidence regarding their retrospective predictions uncovered a significant independent contribution of condition and performance (see bottom half of Table 2), indicating that self-assessment practice made stu- dents less confident in their predictions and that confidence decreased as performance declined. Yet, the signif- icant interaction revealed that confidence declines as a function of assessment practice were dependent upon students’ performance level. Regression analyses pertaining to prospective predictions and related subjective confidence are reported in the Appendix 1. They showed a similar pattern for prospective estimates, and an attenuated pattern for subjective confidence, whereby confidence and performance merely decreased together. The contribution of performance to both outcome variables illustrated a phenomenon also reported by Miller and Geraci (2011). Namely, as performance declined, retrospective estimates became more inflated, but less confident. To better understand the patterns yielded by the interaction of condition and performance, we organ- ized students into four performance levels based on their final test grades: (highest: 100–90%; high: 89–80%; low: 79–67%; and lowest: below 67%, which corresponded to failing the test). Table 3, which reports descriptive Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 797 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ statistics, uncovers several patterns involving the selective impact of self-assessment practice. The practice ex- ercise benefited the most the accuracy of retrospective estimates of students with barely passing (i.e., low) per- formance, whereas it reduced the subjective confidence in the estimates made as performance increased. Table 3 Mean Retrospective Prediction Accuracy and Subjective Confidence of Final Test Grades, Grouped by Performance Level and Condition Performance Level (%) Practice Condition Control Condition Difference Accuracy Lowest + 24.23 (1.15) +24.53 (1.30) −0.03 Low +3.83 (1.45) +12.67 (0.84) −8.84 High −0.53 (1.03) −1.81 (0.72) −1.28 Highest −4.33 (0.55) −4.91 (0.75) −0.58 Subjective Confidence Lowest 1.63 (0.16) 1.42 (0.17) +0.21 Low 1.62 (0.20) 2.02 (0.11) −0.40 High 1.93 (0.14) 2.38 (0.10) −0.45 Highest 2.36 (0.07) 2.67 (0.10) −0.31 Note. Standard errors of the mean are in parentheses. Prediction Accuracy, Subjective Confidence, and Performance as a Function of Self- Efficacy, Completion Rates, and Condition Self-assessment of test performance, including functional and subjective confidence, might be the expression of students’ broader sense of trust in their abilities (as indexed by general self-efficacy), and failed expectations (as indexed by class completion rates). Regression analyses were conducted to determine the contribution of these factors, in addition to self-assessment practice, to functional and subjective confidence and final test grades. As discussed earlier, retrospective ratings of final test grades and related confidence served as the out- come variables because they provided a stringent test of the impact of self-assessment practice above and be- yond the knowledge of class and test demands that students would normally acquire in a semester. In these analyses, condition (control and practice), general self-efficacy, class completion rates and two key interaction terms (condition X general self-efficacy, and condition X class-completion rates) served as predictors. Interac- tion terms were selected in recognition of the fact that the impact of self-assessment practice might vary de- pending on students’ class completion rates or self-efficacy. Class completion rates and general self-efficacy, which were treated as continuous variables, were centered on their respective mean values (Field, 2009). The results of these regression analyses are displayed in Table 4. The only significant contributor to functional and subjective confidence ratings was self-assessment practice. However, both self-assessment practice and general self-efficacy (NGSE) contributed to students’ final test performance. Specifically, students’ self-efficacy increased with their test performance, suggesting that a broader sense of confidence in one’s ability may pro- mote a more efficient execution of test requirements. Yet, it did not predict local judgments, such as functional and subjective confidence of final test grades, suggesting that such judgments may be considered the expres- sion of a motivational state rather than of a motivational trait. The Illusion of Knowing 798 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Table 4 Regression Analyses of Retrospective Prediction Accuracy and Subjective Confidence of Final Test Grades, and Final Test Grades as a Function of Condition, General Self Efficacy (GSE), Class Completion Rates (CCR), and Relevant Interactions Predictor B SE Beta t p Prediction Accuracy Constant +3.574 0.672 Condition* −2.573 0.957 −0.103 −2.69 .007 GSE −1.928 1.202 −0.061 −1.60 .109 CCR −2.882 4.660 −0.024 −0.62 .536 Interaction (GSE & Condition) −0.272 1.202 −0.009 −0.23 .821 Interaction (CCR & condition) +6.640 4.660 +0.056 +1.43 .155 Subjective Confidence Constant +2.286 0.060 Condition* −0.171 0.085 −0.077 −2.00 .046 GSE +0.196 0.107 −0.070 +1.83 .068 CCR −0.239 0.415 −0.023 −0.57 .566 Interaction (GSE & Condition) +0.085 0.107 +0.030 +0.79 .428 Interaction (CCR & condition) −0.025 0.415 −0.002 −0.06 .952 Final Test Performance Constant +82.638 0.759 Condition* +3.916 1.082 +0.137 +3.62 <.001 GSE* 4.516 1.359 +0.125 +3.32 <.000 CCR −2.316 5.266 −0.017 −0.44 .660 Interaction (GSE & Condition) +0.662 1.359 +0.018 −0.49 .626 Interaction (CCR & condition) −6.263 5.266 −0.046 −1.19 .235 Note. Prediction Accuracy (Functional Confidence): R = 0.14. Subjective Confidence: R = 0.10. Final Test Per- formance: R = 0.20. *Significant contribution of predictor to outcome variable. Qualitative Evidence Informal focus groups (as part of debriefing sessions) and observations were conducted at the end of the se- mester with students and instructors regarding the impact of self-assessment practice. Given the hectic nature of end-of-the-semester activities, convenience sampling of students and instructors was utilized. To ensure can- dor and respect anonymity, individual comments were recorded without a link to the self-assessment data col- lected in class. These inquiries led to the following additional qualitative findings: 1) Practice helped students keep attention focused on discrepancies between predicted grades and actual grades. It also made them acutely aware of the distinction between desired grades and grades that could be predicted if exerted effort, adopted study strategies, and demands of tests or class are carefully and objectively considered. 2) Attention to self-assessment helped some students feel more in control of their learning and led them to seek a better un- derstanding of how their study efforts and strategies to prepare for tests could be related to their performance. (3) Noticeably diminished were instructors’ reports of grade groveling inside and outside the classroom, grade appeals, as well as reports of adversarial interactions between instructors and students regarding performance. Of course, given our reliance on convenience sampling, and the absence of a link between individual com- ments and the data collected in class, these opinions and observations are informative, but of limited impact and in need of additional testing. Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 799 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Discussion The overall findings of the present investigation can be summarized in three points: First, at the end of the se- mester, practice with self-assessment improved students’ ability to predict final test performance (i.e., functional confidence) and their actual performance, but did not markedly affect their subjective confidence in the predic- tions made. Second, practice with self-assessment did not improve students’ ability to predict class grades from the start (phase 1) to the end of the semester (phase 3), but it made subjective confidence in their predictions more conservative. Third, general self-efficacy along with self-assessment practice predicted final test perform- ance, but not functional or subjective confidence. These findings obscured two key individual differences. First, at the lowest performance level, overestimations dominated predictions, whereas at the highest level, underestimations prevailed. Yet, the students whose pre- diction accuracy of final test performance benefited the most from practice were those with score just above the passing level (68–79%). As performance increased, students responded to self-assessment practice by becom- ing less confident in their estimates. These patterns indicated that self-assessment practice effects were selec- tive, either targeting deficiencies in metacognitive awareness in students with barely passing grades or restrain- ing subjective confidence in students who already possessed adequate metacognitive awareness and perform- ance. Second, low performers overestimated their final test grades, but exhibited little confidence in their opti- mistic estimations. High performers underestimated their final test grades but did so with greater confidence. Thus, patterns of underestimation and overestimation associated with performance levels did not appear to be merely statistical artifacts (see Krueger, & Mueller, 2002) or undiluted differences in metacognitive skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). They appeared to be sensible judgments based on students’ knowledge of their capabilities in relation to the demands of the situation they faced. As judgments are made within a socio-cultural context, they are also likely to reflect self-presentation tactics. It has been argued that a person’s confidence is shaped by the culture in which he/she lives (Hofstede, 1986). Unlike Western culture, which is, in essence, individualistic, Arabic culture is collectivistic/situational, whereby the needs and goals of the group to which one is affiliated take precedence over the needs and goals of the individual (Feghali, 1997). Thus, if Western students see test and class per- formance as having implications primarily for themselves, Arab students see performance as having implica- tions for themselves within the social fabric of the group(s) to which they belong. Lundeberg et al. (2000) repor- ted that students of Arab descent (Palestinian) tended to be overconfident compared to Western students. Al- though we found the self-assessment patterns of students of Arab descent (KSA nationals) to be largely equiv- alent to those of Western students, differences may exist in the meaning attributed to overestimations. Indeed, for Arab students, overestimations may be the byproducts of strategies intended to maintain positive views not only of themselves in the communities to which they belong, but also of such communities. For Western stu- dents, overestimations may be the byproducts of self-serving strategies intended to maintain a positive self-im- age. Thus, the impact of self-assessment practice on Arab students with a teacher-centered training can be considered broader, implicating key aspects of the social fabric in which students carve their identities. A reproductive approach, which is often promoted by a teacher-centered education, and a reflective/active ap- proach generally lead students to focus on different kinds of information when learning. These approaches have consequences, affecting what students learn, and ultimately their grades (Säljö, 1981). Although it is gen- erally believed that a reflective/active approach has a positive impact on learning outcomes, the examination of The Illusion of Knowing 800 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ the relationship between learning approaches and academic outcomes (e.g., GPA) has produced inconsistent results (Heikkilä, Niemivirta, Nieminen, & Lonka, 2011; Watkins & Hattie, 1981; Zeegers, 2001, 2004; Zeegers & Martin, 2001). Qualitative evidence from students with a teacher-centered educational past, such as ours, may help understand these inconsistencies in the literature. In fact, for students with a teacher-centered educa- tional past, not only the reflective/active approach is adopted on a limited basis when circumstances demand it, but also a reproductive approach may be seen as effective under other circumstances. For instance, consider test questions that require definitions of key concepts to be applied to real-life situations, analyzed, or evaluated (Bloom, 1976). According to our debriefing and focus-group data, students see memorization and comprehen- sion of definitions as a means to ensure retrieval of key concepts during a test that may ask them to explain, compare, contrast, or apply such concepts to real-life situations. Thus, awareness of one’s performance, in- duced by repeated exercise of grade estimation, may not be sufficient to quickly induce new habit formation in students with a teacher-centered educational past (i.e., rejection of their proclivities for replication). Rather it may encourage a more optimal calibration of learning approaches based on the demands of the variety of sit- uations that students face at different times. If self-assessment practice can shape metacognitive awareness, functional and subjective confidence may be expected to be related to a motivational trait, such as self-efficacy. In the present study, self-efficacy predicted final test grades, but not self-assessment accuracy and confidence. Thus, our findings are consistent with those illustrating a positive correlation between self-efficacy and academic achievement (Pintrich et al., 1993; Zeegers, 2004). However, they are inconsistent with those of Avhustiuk et al. (2018), who found that students’ general self-efficacy increased with the accuracy of self-assessment. In an earlier study (Al Kuhayli et al., 2019), involving a larger group of students with a teacher-centered educational past, we found no link between general self-efficacy and measures of self-assessment and performance. These inconsistencies require further examination. Aspects of the methodology of the present field study may raise questions about the unambiguous interpreta- tion of our findings, such as random assignment of sections of the same class, rather than participants, to con- ditions. We relied for data collection on courses, but we selected instructors who taught at least two different sections of the same course so that for each section assigned to control another was assigned to practice. As per information collected from debriefings of students after the study was completed, the estimates made in the practice condition tended to be perceived by the students as routine class activities, perhaps less noteworthy than the content of assignments and tests, but as required as class attendance, timing submission of work, etc. Students mentioned their heavy workload, usually long commutes, and family obligations as their primary con- cerns. Main topics of conversation outside the classroom were reported to be specific troublesome assign- ments, instructors’ demands and behavioral styles, and social life matters. Thus, it is not surprising that stu- dents assigned to the practice condition did not appear to treat the estimation task as a significant topic of dis- cussion outside of the classroom. Lastly, although our sample was female-only, it is important to note that cross-cultural evidence of gender differences in functional and subjective confidence is meager. Namely, con- trary to stereotypes, women appear to be just as confident as men (Lundeberg et al., 2000). Funding The authors have no funding to report. Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 801 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Competing Interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Acknowledgments The authors have no support to report. Re fer en ce s Achacoso, M. V. (2004). Post‐test analysis: A tool for developing students’ metacognitive awareness and self‐regulation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004, 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.179 Al Khazim, M. A. (2003). Higher education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, solutions, and opportunities missed. Higher Education Policy, 16, 479-486. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300035 Al Kuhayli, H., Pilotti, M., El Alaoui, K., Cavazos, S. E., Hassan, S., & Al Ghazo, R. (2019). An Exploratory Non- Experimental Design of Self-Assessment Practice. The International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation, 26(1), 49-65. Al Lily, A. E. A. (2011). On line and under veil: Technology-facilitated communication and Saudi female experience within academia. Technology in Society, 33, 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.005 Al Mezani, H. (2010). Hijacking education in Saudi Arabia. Beirut, LB, USA: AlEntisharAlarabi. Avhustiuk, M. M., Pasichnyk, I. D., & Kalamazh, R. V. (2018). The illusion of knowing in metacognitive monitoring: Effects of the type of information and of personal, cognitive, metacognitive, and individual psychological characteristics. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14, 317-341. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1418 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self- motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586 Biggs, J. B. (1976). Dimensions of study behaviour: Another look at ATI. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02987.x Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill. Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.290 Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004 The Illusion of Knowing 802 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://doi.org/10.1002%2Ftl.179 https://doi.org/10.1057%2Fpalgrave.hep.8300035 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.techsoc.2011.03.005 https://doi.org/10.5964%2Fejop.v14i2.1418 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295X.84.2.191 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066X.44.9.1175 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.41.3.586 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2044-8279.1976.tb02987.x https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.86.2.290 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F109442810141004 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, B. N. (2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 835-847. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.835 Chen, Q., & Okediji, T. O. (2014). Incentive matters! The benefit of reminding students about their academic standing in introductory economics courses. The Journal of Economic Education, 45, 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2014.859955 Douglass, S. L., & Shaikh, M. A. (2004). Defining Islamic education: Differentiation and applications. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 7, 5-18. Dunlosky, J., Serra, M. J., Matvey, G., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Second-order judgments about judgments of learning. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 335-346. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.132.4.335-346 Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01235 Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophesy as a management tool. Academy of Management Review, 9, 64-71. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277938 Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, goal-setting, and expectancy. Compatible ways to boost productivity. Academy of Management Review, 13, 639-652. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4307530 Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2008). Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 98-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002 Entwistle, N. J. (1979). Stages, levels, styles or strategies: Dilemmas in the description of thinking. Educational Review, 31, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191790310206 Fareh, S. (2010). Challenges of teaching English in the Arab world: Why can’t EFL programs deliver as expected? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3600-3604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.559 Feghali, E. (1997). Arab cultural communication patterns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21, , 345-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00005-9 Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK, USA: Sage Publications Ltd. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10, 597-602. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202442 Gordanier, J., Hauk, W., & Sankaran, C. (2018). Early intervention in college classes and improved student outcomes (Report No. 956). Boston, MA, USA: Boston College Department of Economics. Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 803 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0021-9010.85.6.835 https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00220485.2014.859955 https://doi.org/10.3200%2FGENP.132.4.335-346 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1529-1006.2004.00018.x https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8721.01235 https://doi.org/10.5465%2Famr.1984.4277938 https://doi.org/10.5465%2Famr.1988.4307530 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2007.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0013191790310206 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2010.03.559 https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0147-1767%2897%2900005-9 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066X.34.10.906 https://doi.org/10.3758%2FBF03202442 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Günther, S. (2006). Be masters in that you teach and continue to learn: Medieval Muslim thinkers on educational theory. Comparative Education Review, 50, 367-388. https://doi.org/10.1086/503881 Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.160 Hamdan, A. (2014). The road to culturally relevant pedagogy: Expatriate teachers’ pedagogical practices in the cultural context of Saudi Arabian higher education. McGill Journal of Education, 49, 201-226. https://doi.org/10.7202/1025778ar Hayward, C. (2003). Student withdrawal study (Report No. 143). Ukiah, CA, USA: Office of Institutional Research of Mendocino College. Heikkilä, A., Niemivirta, M., Nieminen, J., & Lonka, K. (2011). Interrelations among university students’ approaches to learning, regulation of learning, and cognitive and attributional strategies: A person-oriented approach. Higher Education, 61, 513-529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9346-2 Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5 Jee, B., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. (2006). Expertise and the illusion of comprehension. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 387–392). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Adiv, S., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2014). The effects of goal-driven and data-driven regulation on metacognitive monitoring during learning: A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 386-403. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031768 Krueger, J., & Mueller, R. A. (2002). Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.180 Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 593-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9177-y Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., Brown, A. C., & Elbedour, S. (2000). Cultural influences on confidence: Country and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 152-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.152 Mahrous, A. A., & Ahmed, A. A. (2010). A cross-cultural investigation of students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of pedagogical tools: The Middle East, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309334738 McLellan, J. (2012). Assessing the critical thinking abilities of United Arab Emirates University business students. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 6, 1-17. Retrieved fromhttps://ssrn.com/abstract=1932038 The Illusion of Knowing 804 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://doi.org/10.1086%2F503881 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.92.1.160 https://doi.org/10.7202%2F1025778ar https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10734-010-9346-2 https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0147-1767%2886%2990015-5 https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0031768 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.82.2.180 https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.6.1121 https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11423-010-9177-y https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.92.1.152 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1028315309334738 https://ssrn.com/abstract=1932038 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011a). Training metacognition in the classroom: The influence of incentives and feedback on exam predictions. Metacognition & Learning, 6, 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9083-7 Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011b). Unskilled but aware: Reinterpreting overconfidence in low-performing students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 502-506. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021802 Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149–176). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543 Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10, 1-49. Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., . . . Stankov, L., et al. (2002). The role of individual differences in the accuracy of confidence judgments. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 257-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300209602099 Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024 Poling, P. J. (1979). An analysis of factors related to course drops by undergraduate students at Oregon State University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. Rogoff. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Säljö, R. (1981). Learning approach and outcome: Some empirical observations. Instructional Science, 10, 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00124566 Smith, B. O., White, D. R., Kuzyk, P. C., & Tierney, J. E. (2018). Improved grade outcomes with an e-mailed “grade nudge.” The Journal of Economic Education, 49, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2014.859955 Smith, L. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching at a Gulf university: A starting point for revising a teacher development program. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.zu.ac.ae/lthe/archive.html Stipek, D. (1991). Characterizing early childhood education programs. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1991, 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219915308 Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian university students: Investigations of contextual and personological factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 384-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02494.x Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Wilhite, S. C. (1990). Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of memory ability, and study activities as predictors of college course achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 696-700. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.696 Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 805 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11409-011-9083-7 https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0021802 https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543066004543 https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00221300209602099 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013164493053003024 https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00124566 https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00220485.2014.859955 http://www.zu.ac.ae/lthe/archive.html https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcd.23219915308 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2044-8279.1981.tb02494.x https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.82.4.696 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Williams, W. M. (2004). Blissfully Incompetent. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, i-ii. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00017.x Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158424 Zeegers, P. (2004). Student learning in higher education: A path analysis of academic achievement in science. Higher Education Research & Development, 23, 35-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000168487 Zeegers, P., & Martin, L. (2001). A learning-to-learn program in a first-year chemistry class. Higher Education Research & Development, 20, 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/07924360120043630 Ap pend ix Appendix 1 Regression Analyses of Prospective Prediction Accuracy and Subjective Confidence of Final Test Grades as a Function of Condition, Performance, and Interaction. Predictor B SE Beta t p Prediction Accuracy Constant +2.993 0.403 Condition +0.783 0.573 +0.030 +1.37 .172 Performance* −0.750 0.020 −0.834 −36.79 <.001 Interaction* +0.071 0.020 +0.078 +3.50 .001 Subjective Confidence Constant +2.332 0.054 Condition −0.142 0.076 −0.069 −1.86 .064 Performance* +0.021 0.003 +0.296 +7.82 <.001 Interaction −0.003 0.003 −0.044 −1.17 .243 Note. Prediction Accuracy (Functional Confidence): R = 0.82. Subjective Confidence: R = 0.29. *Significant contribution of predictor to outcome variable. A bout the A uthor s Maura A. E. Pilotti, Faculty, College of Science and Human Studies, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al Khobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. She is a cognitive psychologist whose research interests include learning and memory processes across the lifespan. Currently, her research focuses on the interrelations of memory, language, and emotion. She received her Ph.D. in cognitive psychology at the City University of New York (USA). Khadija El Alaoui, Faculty, College of Science and Human Studies, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al Khobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. She is a scholar of American Cultures whose specializations encompass History and Peace and Justice Studies. Currently, her research focuses on the history of the Arab and Western worlds, human diversity, and cultur- al practices. She received her Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of Dresden (Germany). Huda Mulhem, Faculty, College of Science and Human Studies, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al Khobar, King- dom of Saudi Arabia. She is a scholar of Islamic Studies and Education. Her research focuses on the impact of religious beliefs and culture on educational practices. She received her Ph.D. in Islamic Studies at Iman Ouzai University (Lebanon). The Illusion of Knowing 806 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1529-1006.2004.00017.x https://doi.org/10.1348%2F000709901158424 https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0729436032000168487 https://doi.org/10.1080%2F07924360120043630 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Halah A. Al Kuhayli, Faculty, College of Science and Human Studies, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University, Al Khobar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. She is a researcher of Islamic Cultures. Her major expertise is Education and Cultural Studies. She earned her M.A. in Islamic Culture from Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (KSA). Pilotti, El Alaoui, Mulhem, & Al Kuhayli 807 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2019, Vol. 15(4), 789–807 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1921 PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing service by Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier, Germany. www.leibniz-psychology.org https://www.leibniz-psychology.org/ https://www.psychopen.eu/ The Illusion of Knowing (Introduction) Rationale of the Present Field Study Method Participants Materials and Procedure Results Predictions of Final Test Grades: Students’ Accuracy of Estimation and Confidence Predictions of Class Grades: Students’ Accuracy of Estimation and Confidence Prediction Accuracy and Subjective Confidence as a Function of Performance Level and Condition Prediction Accuracy, Subjective Confidence, and Performance as a Function of Self-Efficacy, Completion Rates, and Condition Qualitative Evidence Discussion (Additional Information) Funding Competing Interests Acknowledgments References Appendix About the Authors