Metacognitive monitoring in university classes: anticipating a graded vs. a pass-fail test affects monitoring accuracy

Abstract

Three field studies tested the hypothesis that anticipating a graded test as opposed to a pass-fail test enhances metacognitive monitoring. Participants were teacher candidates who completed a mid-term and a final test in psychology courses. Each participant chose whether the result of the final test should be evaluated with one of five grades or with a pass-fail decision. In both tests, participants answered true–false inference items about the contents of the course and indicated their confidence in the correctness of each answer. When a graded test was expected, confidence and the absolute accuracy of the confidence judgments increased and bias decreased to a greater extent than when a pass-fail decision was expected. However, expecting a grade increased participants’ confidence not only in correct answers but also in incorrect answers (Study 1). Feedback and instructions emphasizing the importance of accurate discrimination between correct and incorrect answers did not weaken this effect (Study 2). The generalizability of the findings was investigated by reanalyzing the test results of participants in eight other psychology courses (Study 3). The results are discussed in terms of the motivational consequences of grading.