Performance Overconfidence: Metacognitive Effects or Misplaced Student Expectations?

By D. Clayson. 2005

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0946f21398333c2ab3bea6cd162bb1503ebfe0da

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Kate Talsma
2. Benjamin Schüz
3. Kimberley Norris

In Social Psychology

1. Kate Talsma
2. D. Clayson
3. Benjamin Schüz
4. Kimberley Norris

Citations in the corpus

• Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit : divergent exit routes and their drivers (2010, unknown): “Although this finding is in conflict with our hypothesis, one possible explanation is the overconfidence that often comes with education (Clayson, 2005).”
• Student evaluations of teaching: perceptions of faculty based on gender, position, and rank (2010, background): “Gillmore and Greenwald (1999) has been one of many researchers who have suggested that evaluations can be ‘bought’ by grades, and are not actually related to learning (e.g. Clayson 2005; Weinberg, Fleisher, and Hashimoto 2007).”
• Miscalibration of self-efficacy and academic performance: Self-efficacy ≠ self-fulfilling prophecy (2019, background): “For example, self-efficacy may be based on desired outcomes or aspirations (Serra & DeMarree, 2016) or norms such as average GPA of an institution (Clayson, 2005).”
• The trouble with overconfidence. (2008, unknown): “Some findings from this literature inc lude the following: students overestimate their performance on exams (Clayson, 2005), physi cians overestimate the accuracy of their diagnoses (Christensen-Szalanski & B ushyhead, 1981), people overestimate how much control they have (Presson & Benassi, 1996), ”
• Student Evaluations of Teaching: Are They Related to What Students Learn? (2009, background): “Students’ perceived grades need not be strongly related to their actual grades (Baird, 1987; Clayson, 2005a; Flowers, Osterlind, Pascarella, & Pierson, 2001; Sheehan & DuPrey, 1999; Williams & Ceci, 1997).”