Accuracy monitoring is used to measure the extent to which the participants’ evaluation of their memory and learning capabilities with their actual performance. Upon conducting the experiment, it is necessary to assess whether such match exists and what is the extent of it. Within the framework of such assessment, we will conduct a few correlations.
Exam Performance and Confidence Ratings
The overall exam performance summed up to 0.85 (proportion of correct responses). To convert the performance into the language of grades, such performance can be counted for a good B. Although the average does not give an account for results specifically, it is possible to say that the students have reached a high performance rate in the given test. Only one student has a proportion of correct answers that is lower than 0.7; three students have to be excluded from the sample because they have given 100% correct responses. Overall, the performance rate was high for all participants regardless of their self-efficacy predictions.
Monitoring Accuracy
The correlation (r) between the participants’ predictions of their performance – estimated self-efficacy – and grade-point is not significant: r = 0.248; p < 0.5 (Median = 0.294; SD = 0.254). A weak correlation, in this case, means that relying on a participant’s self-efficacy estimation, it is not possible to adequately predict their performance and proportion correct. The weakness of the correlation means that the participants were not quite accurate in predicting their performance.
The average correlation between the participants’ confidence rating at the end of the exam and their actual post-test grade outcome is r = 0.33. Such result indicates a weak association between the students’ confidence rates and their exam grades.
The relationship between monitoring accuracy and exam performance
Further, we have to test the hypothesis on the presence of association between those with high learning monitoring accuracy and low learning monitoring accuracy and their learning outcomes. For that purpose, we have separated the participants into two groups based on how well did their self-efficacy estimation correlate with their exam performance. 3 participants who had 100% test results do not meet the inclusion criteria, which is why they were excluded from the data analysis.
Based on the correlation score, high monitoring accuracy group consisted of 11 participants and low monitoring efficacy group amounted to 8 participants. A t-test was conducted to determine if the groups’ performance was significantly different from each other. The results of the t-test for both groups are t (19) = 0.46; p = 0.64 (M = 0.81; SD = 0.14). The results of the t-test do not demonstrate any significant difference between the groups. Thus, contrary to the initial hypothesis, the absence of the difference indicates that higher or lower accuracy monitoring does not determine the performance rate.
This correlation is reflected in the pretest and posttest results of the participants. The final grades did not show significant improvement and did not correlate with the time the participants spent studying. As a result, it is possible to make a conclusion that the study-time allocation, in this particular scenario did not produce any visible effect on the performance of the respondents. To be more precise, the results indicate individual correlations of the participants’ performance during the tests and the time spent preparing.
No specific patterns could be found in order to group the respondents based on certain criteria. That is why, the results of the study are recognized as inconclusive; and therefore, the overall performance of the participants during the first and the second tests differs in a way that does not support the hypothesis. The general results indicate that the mean performance of the participants during the first test was overall less successful compared to the results of the first test.
The fact that there was no visible improvement in the median results demonstrates that the allocation of the study-time in this particular scenario, was not in correlation with the performance of the participants. According to the hypothesis, it was anticipated that the self-regulated learning would be applied by the students during the experiment and generate positive results in accordance with the conditions of the learning (the number of items required to memorize, the amount of time available).
The study has demonstrated that there was a relationship between the study-time the participants spent learning certain items and their JOLs. Based on the Goodman-Kruskal’s gamma correlation calculation, it was possible to determine that all of the 36 participants of the test relied on metacognitive monitoring while deciding which pairs of figures they had to look at for a longer period of time due to their complexity and the related difficulty to memorize. Goodman-Kruskal’s gamma correlation showed the results significantly different than zero in all the participants (t (33) = 8.4, p <.01; and that indicates that there was a correlation between the use of metacognition and the time the participants spent attempting to memorize the items.
The level of the memory performance was studied within the relationship between JOLs of the participants and the study-time allocation patterns. The gamma correlation variables served as the criteria for the division of the participants into groups with low and high self-regulation results accordingly. Further, the results found that there was a correlation between the level of self-regulation and its alignment with the JOLs of a participant and their ability to memorize. At the same time, the Goodman-Kruskal’s gamma correlation calculation showed no correlation between the study-time allocation, the complexity of a pair in terms of memorization, and the participants’ results and performance. In other words, the amount of time spent by the individuals attempting to memorize the figures did not relate to how well they performed during a test. This pattern was noticed in both of the groups (with high and low self-regulation capacity).
All in all, the allocation of study-time by the participants was proven not to be related to their performance even though their judgement of the complexity and difficulty to memorize various objects was equal and accurate. These results indicate that the performance of the participants depends on their individual memory abilities in a combination with self-regulation capacity.
