Students often misjudge their knowledge by relying on cues such as familiarity or ease, which can lead to misplaced confidence in wrong answers and unnecessary doubt in correct ones. These mismatches between confidence and accuracy, called calibration errors, disrupt effective learning by skewing how students manage study time, choose strategies, and seek help. Because these errors persist even when knowledge increases, interventions must focus instead on strengthening metacognitive monitoring, the ability to evaluate the reliability of one's own thinking, independent of content knowledge.


This study tests two psychoeducational modules designed to improve monitoring accuracy. Undergraduate participants complete pre- and post-tests of general knowledge questions with confidence ratings. In the post-test, students can revise their confidence after reflecting on cues such as effort or answer accessibility. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) an experiential-information module, which trains students to evaluate the meaning of cues such as ease or doubt; (2) a combined module, which adds a motivational framing that treats errors as useful information; or (3) a control condition.


Effectiveness will be evaluated through improvements in calibration (the alignment of confidence with accuracy) and resolution (the ability to distinguish correct from incorrect answers). If successful, these modules offer a scalable way to embed metacognitive scaffolds into classroom practice, equipping students with transferable strategies for monitoring their own learning. In doing so, the project translates metacognition research into practical tools that help students recognize and act on what they do not know, an ability essential for learning across both familiar and novel contexts.