The Bottom Line
- Confidence is unreliable; performance is the truth.
- Predict → test → debrief → re-test is the loop that closes gaps.
- Use ‘desirable difficulty’: learning should feel a bit hard to work.
Why your brain lies to you (and how to fix it)
Students often overestimate learning from fluent activities (re-reading, neat notes). Evidence reviews rate practice testing and distributed practice as high utility, and retrieval practice can outperform elaborative studying even when learners *believe* the opposite. Calibration fixes wasted effort.
Calibration is the highest-leverage skill in exam prep. It prevents you from spending 70% of your time polishing strengths and 30% panicking about weaknesses. With calibration, you spend the majority of time on the smallest number of highest-impact gaps.
1
Step 1 — Predict your score (before each set)
Write a quick predicted score (e.g., ‘I expect 70%’). This forces honesty and creates a calibration metric.
2
Step 2 — Test under constraints
Timed questions or forced recall. No notes. If it’s too comfortable, it’s not diagnostic.
3
Step 3 — Postdict + gap map
Immediately after: record actual score + the delta from your prediction. Then list your top 5 gaps by impact (topics or error types).
4
Step 4 — Error taxonomy (the only debrief that matters)
Label each miss: (a) knowledge gap, (b) misread stem, (c) wrong differential, (d) guideline/management, (e) arithmetic/data interpretation. The label determines the fix.
5
Step 5 — Re-test in 72 hours
Re-test the same gap category quickly. If the gap persists, you need a different intervention (better card design, smaller chunking, or more reps).
1
2
3
4
SourceDunlosky et al. — evidence review of study techniques (PubMed)
Open Link SourceKarpicke & Blunt — retrieval practice vs elaborative studying (PubMed)
Open Link SourceBjork & Bjork — desirable difficulties (PDF)
Open Link