Scholarlink

<p>This study considers the utility of repeated confidence assessments for improving students’ calibration and investigates whether there are any associations between calibration and gender. Calibration measures how well a student’s beliefs about their mathematical performance align with their actual performance. Confidence assessments require students to express their confidence in their answers and are commonly used to assess and improve calibration through providing confidence-weighted scores. We analysed data from <i>N</i> = 117 online participants, who gave demographic information before answering nine mathematics questions, grouped into blocks of three, stating their confidence alongside each of their responses. After each block of three questions, automated feedback was provided on the participant’s accuracy, and they were given their confidence-weighted score. We found no improvement in calibration across repeated confidence assessments. However, we found strong correlations between calibration and gender, age, location of education, and field of study. Male calibration was on average 25 marks (out of 90) higher than female calibration. Females lost a mean of 13.3 marks through under-confidence in a correct answer, compared to a mean loss&#xa0;of 3.7 marks for males. This strong association between calibration and gender suggests that efforts to improve calibration may need to be adjusted.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Confidence Assessment, Calibration, and Gender

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月5日

查看全文
  • Eletta Rainsford,
  • Colin Foster

摘要

This study considers the utility of repeated confidence assessments for improving students’ calibration and investigates whether there are any associations between calibration and gender. Calibration measures how well a student’s beliefs about their mathematical performance align with their actual performance. Confidence assessments require students to express their confidence in their answers and are commonly used to assess and improve calibration through providing confidence-weighted scores. We analysed data from N = 117 online participants, who gave demographic information before answering nine mathematics questions, grouped into blocks of three, stating their confidence alongside each of their responses. After each block of three questions, automated feedback was provided on the participant’s accuracy, and they were given their confidence-weighted score. We found no improvement in calibration across repeated confidence assessments. However, we found strong correlations between calibration and gender, age, location of education, and field of study. Male calibration was on average 25 marks (out of 90) higher than female calibration. Females lost a mean of 13.3 marks through under-confidence in a correct answer, compared to a mean loss of 3.7 marks for males. This strong association between calibration and gender suggests that efforts to improve calibration may need to be adjusted.