Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring

Many models of professional self-regulation call upon individual practitioners to take responsibility both for identifying the limits of their own skills and for redressing their identified limits through continuing professional development activities. Despite these expectations, a considerable lite...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eva, Kevin W., Regehr, Glenn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21113820
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9263-2
_version_ 1782208497441570816
author Eva, Kevin W.
Regehr, Glenn
author_facet Eva, Kevin W.
Regehr, Glenn
author_sort Eva, Kevin W.
collection PubMed
description Many models of professional self-regulation call upon individual practitioners to take responsibility both for identifying the limits of their own skills and for redressing their identified limits through continuing professional development activities. Despite these expectations, a considerable literature in the domain of self-assessment has questioned the ability of the self-regulating professional to enact this process effectively. In response, authors have recently suggested that the construction of self-assessment as represented in the self-regulation literature is, itself, problematic. In this paper we report a pair of studies that examine the relationship between self-assessment (a global judgment of one’s ability in a particular domain) and self-monitoring (a moment-by-moment awareness of the likelihood that one maintains the skill/knowledge to act in a particular situation). These studies reveal that, despite poor correlations between performance and self-assessments (consistent with what is typically seen in the self-assessment literature), participant performance was strongly related to several measures of self-monitoring including: the decision to answer or defer responding to a question, the amount of time required to make that decision to answer or defer, and the confidence expressed in an answer when provided. This apparent divergence between poor overall self-assessment and effective self-monitoring is considered in terms of how the findings might inform our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms yielding both self-monitoring judgments and self-assessments and how that understanding might be used to better direct education and learning efforts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3139875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31398752011-09-01 Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring Eva, Kevin W. Regehr, Glenn Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Article Many models of professional self-regulation call upon individual practitioners to take responsibility both for identifying the limits of their own skills and for redressing their identified limits through continuing professional development activities. Despite these expectations, a considerable literature in the domain of self-assessment has questioned the ability of the self-regulating professional to enact this process effectively. In response, authors have recently suggested that the construction of self-assessment as represented in the self-regulation literature is, itself, problematic. In this paper we report a pair of studies that examine the relationship between self-assessment (a global judgment of one’s ability in a particular domain) and self-monitoring (a moment-by-moment awareness of the likelihood that one maintains the skill/knowledge to act in a particular situation). These studies reveal that, despite poor correlations between performance and self-assessments (consistent with what is typically seen in the self-assessment literature), participant performance was strongly related to several measures of self-monitoring including: the decision to answer or defer responding to a question, the amount of time required to make that decision to answer or defer, and the confidence expressed in an answer when provided. This apparent divergence between poor overall self-assessment and effective self-monitoring is considered in terms of how the findings might inform our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms yielding both self-monitoring judgments and self-assessments and how that understanding might be used to better direct education and learning efforts. Springer Netherlands 2010-11-30 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC3139875/ /pubmed/21113820 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9263-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2010 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Article
Eva, Kevin W.
Regehr, Glenn
Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
title Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
title_full Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
title_fullStr Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
title_short Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
title_sort exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21113820
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9263-2
work_keys_str_mv AT evakevinw exploringthedivergencebetweenselfassessmentandselfmonitoring
AT regehrglenn exploringthedivergencebetweenselfassessmentandselfmonitoring