Dunning-Kruger Effect

An Adult Learning Framework for Enhancing Metacognitive Aptitude and Reducing Cognitive Bias in the U.S. Army Special Forces

Daniel W. Ross

U.S. Special Operations Command

Download the PDF

Abstract

This article analyzes the impact of cognitive biases, specifically the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE), on the U.S. Army Special Forces (SF) Regiment and proposes adult learning strategies designed to mitigate their negative influence. The problem is that this psychological phenomenon, where individuals with low competence overestimate their abilities while highly skilled individuals underestimate theirs, not only affects the traditional classroom but also impairs the professional judgment of adult learners operating in high-risk professions. SF, or Green Berets, execute high-stakes military missions requiring a diverse skill set across a broad range of specialized tasks. The overall intent of this article is to provide Special Forces Operational Detachment-Alpha (SFOD-A) leadership with an adult learning framework to strengthen metacognitive aptitude and reduce cognitive bias at the team level. First, the article provides a review of the origins, theoretical development, and current research concerning the DKE. Second, it discusses the importance of metacognitive aptitude for SF. The article concludes by examining a selection of adult learning tools useful to SFOD-A leadership for enhancing metacognitive aptitude on their teams and mitigating the potential effects of the DKE on planning, training, mission execution, evaluation, and learning. This adult learning framework focuses on reducing learner resistance, amplifying reflective observation, transforming the learner’s frame of reference, promoting self-regulated learning, and implementing cognitive apprenticeship in the SF team room. Given the substantial responsibilities entrusted to SFOD-As, the SF Regiment’s overall culture of low tolerance for failure, contemporary mission creep, and daily task saturation, SF learners remain particularly vulnerable to the DKE, underscoring the necessity for deliberate metacognitive training and leadership interventions grounded in adult learning theory.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) is a cognitive bias in which individuals with limited expertise overrate their abilities, leading to flawed judgment and poor decisions. This bias arises from a deficiency in metacognitive skills that impair an individual’s capacity to accurately evaluate their own performance (Magnus & Peresetsky, 2022; Sulphey & Senan, 2025). Metacognition involves the ability to self-reflect, assess, and understand one’s own mental processes (Moritz & Lysaker, 2018). Enhancing metacognitive aptitude helps individuals develop skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and leadership capacity (Nedelec et al., 2025; Tezer, 2024).

The problem is that this psychological phenomenon not only affects adult learners in a traditional classroom but also impairs the professional judgment of those operating in high-risk professions (Rubin & Froustis, 2023). The U.S. Army Special Forces (SF) Regiment represents a population of high-performing, elite soldiers tasked to take a leading role in numerous high-risk special warfare and surgical strike functions. The DKE remains underexplored in this risk-intensive profession, which demands exceptional metacognitive aptitude and collective expertise to execute a wide range of SF principal tasks, each requiring a broad spectrum of skills.

Although DKE potentially affects learners at every echelon of SF, this article focuses on providing Special Forces Operational Detachment-Alpha (SFOD-A) leadership with an adult learning framework to enhance metacognitive aptitude and reduce cognitive bias at the team level. The SFOD-A, or A-Team, is the primary 12-man fighting unit of the SF Regiment (Sacquety, 2023) and represents a nontraditional classroom of adult learners. The U.S. government expects soldiers to consistently perform at peak levels to accomplish mission objectives and avoid mission failure regardless of personal or professional adversity (Adrian et al., 2025). Soldiers on an SFOD-A remain susceptible to the pitfalls of the DKE due to the considerable degree of entrusted responsibility, an organizational culture characterized by a low tolerance for individual failure, contemporary mission creep, and daily task saturation.

This article first establishes the operational context of this unique population of U.S. Army soldiers and explains why the DKE constitutes a particularly threatening cognitive bias. It then examines the critical role of metacognitive aptitude within the SF Regiment, placing specific emphasis on its importance at the SFOD-A level. The article concludes by examining a selection of adult learning tools for SFOD-A leadership to enhance metacognitive aptitude on their teams and mitigate the potential effects of the DKE during planning, training, mission execution, evaluation, and learning. This adult learning framework focuses on reducing learner resistance, amplifying reflective observation, transforming the learner’s frame of reference, promoting self-regulated learning, and implementing cognitive apprenticeship in the SF team room. The tools provided in the framework serve to mitigate the DKE within the SFOD-A by cultivating individual awareness of performance gaps, promoting corrective action, and systematically advancing the proficiency and expertise of the SF Regiment from the team level upward.

Green Berets: A Critical and High-Risk Profession

The U.S. Army SF Regiment is the leading Department of Defense unit designed and employed to conduct special warfare (Department of the Army, 2014). SF soldiers (a.k.a. Green Berets) operate in elite cohesive units and perform high-risk, sensitive operations on the U.S. government’s behalf. The profession requires them to be the masters of basic military tasks and maintain expertise in a myriad of SF principal tasks. The SF Regiment maintains a unique organizational culture that requires its soldiers to sustain a broad spectrum of skills (Rivera et al., 2022).

SF personnel undergo intense, multifaceted selection processes and rigorous training to determine qualifications and prepare them mentally and physically for high levels of stress and fierce combat experiences that often span months at a time. These highly trained and specially selected individuals habitually serve as the first soldiers deployed worldwide to austere, remote, and dangerous locations (Cooper et al., 2020). SF operates well in these extreme environments, ranging from high-impact kinetic situations to lower-tempo advise and assist missions (King, 2017). As such, the profession demands SF soldiers maintain superior physical and cognitive performance levels to lead and navigate unique mission requirements during ever-evolving and challenging conflicts (Farina et al., 2017). The high standards imposed on SF soldiers have only risen over the past 25 years.

Malvesti (2010) recognized how special operations forces (SOF) evolved into invaluable assets during the Global War on Terrorism, as SOF proficiency increased to the highest level in recent history. Now, Green Berets are once again being asked to do more with less. Recruiting shortfalls, U.S. Army Special Operations Command personnel cuts over the next five years, and the added skill requirements based on the high-tech nature of the modern battlefield present potential complications for contemporary SF (Baldor, 2024). One complication involves task overload and the number of skills individual SF soldiers or the collective SFOD-As strive to maintain. Another involves the constant mission creep experienced during the Global War on Terrorism, where SF uncharacteristically executed direct action and counterterrorism more than its core missions of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense. Koven and Mason (2021) note that “the capabilities and skills that make Special Forces unique within the special operations enterprise have been de-prioritized over the last two decades given the overwhelming U.S. government focus on direct action counter-terrorism” (p. 1).

The SF Regiment upholds its value proposition to the U.S. government by rigorously assessing its ability to execute the numerous individual and team specialty skills inherent to the mandated principal tasks. SF developed into the “easy button” or “go-to” form of military power during the recent “golden age of special operations” (Burgos, 2018, p. 109). A figure of speech still exists throughout SF culture: “jack-of-all-trades, master of none.” Internal and external expectations for SF have evolved over time to quixotically require the organization to be the “jack-of-all-trades, master of all.” Moreover, an interesting adage pervades the organizational culture of SF: “You’re a Green Beret; you’ll figure it out.” On the one hand, these cultural artifacts inspire creativity, adaptability, initiative, and resourcefulness. On the other hand, these attitudes potentially set younger, inexperienced, or potentially incompetent individuals up for failure if they have not acquired or maintained proficiency in an SF skill or task. Command Sgt. Maj. Shane W. Shorter of U.S. Special Operations Command recognizes that SOF now has a greater scope of responsibility with technology’s wide-ranging roles in modern conflict but believes the organization will be no less proficient at practical tasks, physical capabilities, or cognitive abilities (Garamone, 2024). To ensure this reality, SF stands to benefit from understanding mitigation measures to manage and control the potential negative implications of increased task saturation and new skill overload. Understanding certain cognitive biases, such as the DKE, and actively improving SFOD-A metacognitive aptitude through adult learning methodology represents an avenue for fortifying SF’s ability to competently conduct special warfare in the future.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

Rising operational demands make it essential for SFOD-As to recognize collective shortcomings and counter individual cognitive biases. The DKE emerged from a series of studies by Kruger and Dunning (1999) and describes a “dual burden” cognitive bias where individuals with low ability in a skill remain unaware of their deficit and tend to overestimate their proficiency (Ghosh, 2025). The psychological phenomenon also highlights how highly intelligent individuals or experts often underestimate their abilities or performance (Nedelec et al., 2025). In short, individuals suffering from the DKE suffer from ignorance of ignorance (Fan, 2025).

According to the original researchers, this bias arises from a deficiency in metacognitive skills that impair an individual’s capacity to accurately evaluate their own performance (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Metacognition characterizes the ability to self-reflect, assess, and understand one’s own mental processes. This concept of “knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena” first appeared in the work of James H. Flavell in 1979 (Moritz & Lysaker, 2018, p. 20). Metacognitive aptitude helps individuals develop skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and leadership capacity (Nedelec et al., 2025; Tezer, 2024). The DKE has been studied in multiple populations ranging from students across various academic disciplines and education levels to professional fields, including medicine, law, engineering, business, and education.

Expanding from the Undergraduate Classroom

Kruger and Dunning (1999) conducted several studies with student populations demonstrating how low performers on tests concerning humor judgment, logical reasoning, and grammar abilities overestimated their performance percentile. Additionally, they discovered that top performers tended to underestimate their performance percentile. The findings indicated the existence of a psychological phenomenon where a disparity occurs between an individual’s perceived ability at a tested skill compared to their peers and the actual performance or outcome. Since the publication of this seminal literature, the DKE has also been explored in high-stress professions rather than solely well-controlled student or academic testing environments (Muller et al., 2021). For example, recent studies concerning medical residents (Gaeta et al., 2024), medical professionals (Rahmani, 2020), disaster management (Siems, 2016), aviation (Pavel et al., 2021), and novice drivers (Navarro et al., 2025) investigated the nuances of the DKE in more high-risk environments outside of the traditional classroom.

Criticism and Counterarguments

Undoubtedly, the validity of the DKE remains a controversial concept (Nedelec et al., 2025). Many scholars, even those who believe they have empirically demonstrated its existence, voice cautious skepticism. Most studies recognize the existence of the DKE in some form or another related to a psychological explanation; however, conclusions vary concerning metacognitive explanations and the validity of statistical evidence (Magnus & Peresetsky, 2022). Nedelec et al. (2025) provide a robust summary of the literature from 1999 to 2025 that offers both support and criticism of the DKE. They identify two main criticisms of the original research. First, the 1999 study used a population of gifted students at an elite university, which led to skewed samples and a lack of generalizability. Second, analysis and interpretation of the data in numerous studies since 2002 have produced mixed results.

To illustrate, Krueger and Mueller (2002) argued that the statistical methods used to demonstrate the DKE possibly generate statistical artifacts rather than genuine cognitive bias. Others discuss issues with generalization and replicability related to DKE studies. For example, the DKE might be context-dependent based on the task, cultural norms, and the individual’s personality traits or prior experience (Schlosser et al., 2013). Researchers attempted to replicate earlier findings on the DKE through new statistical methods with conflicting conclusions (Gignac, 2022, 2024; Gignac & Zajenkowski, 2020, 2023; Hiller, 2023). This ongoing academic debate indicates that the DKE phenomenon requires further refinement and empirical validation by assessing the findings of subsequent studies for generalizability and replicability across other populations, sample sizes, and experimental variables.

Understudied in U.S. Military Populations

The DKE remains underexplored and mostly anecdotal in the U.S. military, let alone the SF Regiment. SF senior leaders Bode et al. (2019) identified the DKE as a pandemic in the SF Regiment. They argued the importance of human ego development and expertise for SOF. SOF learns best through the crucible of failure, but ignorance or incompetence limits learning opportunities in these environments. Leonard (2020) referenced personal experiences concerning the DKE and the overall military. He discussed how the DKE often manifests through incompetent leaders who lack the ability to recognize their own incompetence. He identified that overconfident individuals who allow hubris and an overinflated sense of leadership ability damage their organizations. Fackler (2025) reflected briefly on the DKE as a premise for how professional relationships between noncommissioned and warrant officers help maximize training efficacy across the Army leader development strategy domains.

Beyond these contributions, peer-reviewed research on the DKE in the military has largely centered on medical contexts, including evidence of overconfidence among Advanced Cardiac Life Support-certified providers (Good & Rabener, 2021), self-underrating by surgeons during mass-casualty events (Andreatta et al., 2022), and misperceived self-efficacy in cricothyroidotomy training (Etherton et al., 2024). The paucity of research in academic databases related to the DKE and nonmedical aspects of military training and performance (i.e., armed conflict, combat, and weapons-related training) is beginning to be highlighted. This revelation lays the groundwork for future research (Silveira, 2024).

What Is the Danger?

Research on the DKE across multiple military domains, and particularly within the SF Regiment, advances understanding of metacognition and contributes to improved team performance. The DKE is especially dangerous because low-performing individuals not only execute tasks poorly but also believe they perform them well (Magnus & Peresetsky, 2022). This dangerous illusion equates to individual team members exhibiting reckless overconfidence in their decision-making; they struggle to effectively gauge their own abilities relative to others. Characteristic of the DKE, these low performers lack metacognitive insight related to their inability to exercise specific skills and usually rate themselves as better than their peers (Gaeta et al., 2024). The DKE cognitive bias contributes to significant consequences such as resistance to learning, miscommunication, or failure to recognize genuine expertise (TED-Ed, 2017; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Critically, the DKE undermines team dynamics and amplifies negative outcomes during urgent situations or high-risk careers such as emergency response, medicine, and military operations (Boogaard, 2022). The high-stakes, task-saturated SF Regiment represents a population appropriate for exploration into the DKE to discover ways to enhance metacognitive aptitude at the SFOD-A level and mitigate such potentially detrimental cognitive biases.

Importance of Metacognitive Aptitude in the Special Forces

While many scholars continue to debate the nuances of the DKE and whether it exists outside of statistical artifacts, merit exists in exploring the theoretical implications of the psychological phenomenon to improve SF individual and team performance. Metacognitive skills are crucial to SF for a myriad of reasons. Metacognition entails the high-order capacity to actively monitor and regulate one’s own cognitive processes (Nakamura & Lau, 2025). Simply put, metacognition involves awareness and understanding of one’s thought processes; it is the process of thinking about one’s thinking (Tezer, 2024). A high level of metacognitive aptitude is a prerequisite in SF; the organization requires warriors who think independently and understand the second- and third-order effects of their actions (Moore, 2019). For example, this metacognitive requirement is explicitly critical to every special operations imperative:

• Recognize political implications.
• Engage the threat discriminately.
• Anticipate psychological effects and the impact of information.
• Operate with and through others.
• Ensure long-term engagement. (Department of the Army, 2025, para. 4-15)

The SF Regiment requires creative, adaptable, and unconventional thinkers with the ability to look beyond standard solutions (Burton, 2017). More importantly, the SF profession dictates that each Green Beret maintain acute awareness of their performance and the capacity to reflect upon their actions with humility for the team’s betterment (Clark, 2021). Cognitive resilience allows soldiers to sustain mental performance under pressure and enables better judgment, attention, emotional control, and situational awareness during high-stress missions (Flood & Keegan, 2022). Metacognitive skills allow SF soldiers to quickly and efficiently assess evolving situations in dynamic environments and adjust their strategies accordingly (Chauhan, 2024; Haynie & Shepherd, 2009). These types of environments necessitate well-developed critical thinking and decision-making skills (Burton, 2017).

For instance, unconventional warfare remains the core task and organizing principle for the U.S. Army SF (Department of the Army, 2014). SF leaders need to be adaptable to successfully plan operations in the complex, uncertain environments characteristic of unconventional and irregular warfare missions. Levels of metacognitive skill and self-awareness are also predictive of adaptive performance in SF (Croot, 2008; White et al., 2005). Moreover, SF builds relationships across the globe by understanding and integrating with diverse indigenous populations (McGurk, 2021). Metacognition facilitates cultural sensitivity and has been identified as “the critical link between cultural knowledge and cross-cultural skills, bridging the gap between cognition and behavior” (Steel, 2022, p. 242).

Stojiljković et al. (2018) emphasize that the inability of unskilled individuals to accurately evaluate their own competencies is a significant source of human error. This overestimation of ability often fosters overconfidence, which inhibits individuals from pursuing additional training or skill development. Consequently, this dynamic perpetuates a cycle of inadequacy and leadership failures (Stuart, 2024). Enhancing metacognitive awareness helps SFOD-As evaluate past actions, identify mistakes, and refine future tactics. Consciously addressing cognitive biases such as DKE reduces hubris, impaired judgment, and arrogance that contribute to mission failure, injury, or death (Klein et al., 2018; Kleitman et al., 2019). Improving SFOD-A performance and reducing cognitive biases require strengthening metacognitive skills through an adult learning framework.

Cultivating Metacognitive Aptitude on the SFOD-A Through an Adult Learning Framework

Historically, broader U.S. societal trends have influenced and shaped military adult education (Persyn & Polson, 2012). This form of adult learning involves continual education about both the duties and identity of being in the armed services. The process represents an ongoing progression toward individual and collective socialization or professionalization. Military education extends beyond job-specific training to encompass the comprehensive professional development of service members. Training refers to instruction focused on developing technical skills specific to a military specialty. In contrast, education emphasizes intellectual growth and cultivating wisdom and judgment, preparing individuals to navigate novel and complex situations (Rocco et al., 2020).

Enhanced metacognitive aptitude enables soldiers to monitor, assess, and adapt intuitive decision-making processes (Cohen et al., 1996). The following adult learning framework focuses on reducing learner resistance, amplifying reflective observation, transforming the learner’s frame of reference, promoting self-regulated learning, and implementing cognitive apprenticeship in the SF team room. The first step for metacognitive growth entails addressing and reducing resistance to learning. Since adult learners are naturally resistant to change, Malcolm Knowles’s six assumptions of andragogy provide SFOD-A leadership with an approach for addressing learner resistance within the team room (Shabnam, 2019).

Knowles: Reducing Learner Resistance

Resistance to learning poses a significant barrier to education and the cultivation of metacognitive aptitude within an SFOD-A. Numerous variables contribute to learner resistance. Resistance stems from cognitive, motivational, emotional, psychological, environmental, pedagogical, and sociocultural determinants. From a cognitive standpoint, learners on an SFOD-A sometimes have inadequate previous knowledge, find the material too complex, or find the presentation of information off-putting. Moreover, excessive multitasking due to task saturation decreases concentrated learning efficacy. Fear of failure, lack of rewards, and personal goal orientation affect learner motivation and buy-in. Emotional and psychological elements, such as performance anxiety and mental health issues, contribute to resistance. Distractions in the SFOD-A learning environment, poor pedagogical feedback mechanisms, or a negative team culture concerning education greatly influence performance and learning processes (Küçükkaragöz & Meylani, 2023, 2025).

Understanding a few assumptions and principles associated with adult learning and Knowles’s theory of andragogy provides SFOD-A leadership the ability to overcome learner resistance. Knowles explored the differences between adult and nonadult learners. Scholars generally define an adult learner as a responsible, independent, and self-directed individual aged 25 or older (Pierson, 2017). The average age for Green Berets on an SFOD-A is 29 for enlisted and 34 for officers (Green Beret Foundation, n.d.). Six underlying assumptions about internal characteristics that differentiate andragogy from pedagogy potentially provide a road map for countering learner resistance and providing learner-centered education on an SFOD-A (see Figure 1).

The six assumptions allow SFOD-A leadership to leverage the internal characteristics and motivations of adult learners on the team. Redirecting the focus of andragogy onto SFOD-A leaders and educators elucidates four useful principles for adaptation:

1. Adult learners on the team need to have a stake in the planning and assessment of their instruction.
2. Experience is the foundation for adult learning on an SFOD-A.
3. Soldiers need to clearly understand the relevance of the training or learning and how it impacts their job.
4. Do not focus on content; focus on the problem. Train to the problem and not to “check the block.”

Pierson (2017) discussed these concepts in detail. He indicated andragogy as “a learner-focused theory in which learners are internally motivated to construct knowledge by drawing upon previous experience to solve real-world issues” (p. 34). This statement expertly captures the expected nature of individuals desiring to serve, learn, and grow on an SFOD-A and highlights the importance of experiential learning in this complex population.

Kolb: Focusing on Reflective Observation

David A. Kolb (1984) built upon the works of Dewey (1938), Lewin, and Piaget to develop an experiential learning theory that centers learning and cognitive development on an individual’s experiences. Kolb believed that learners acquire knowledge through four experiential modes of learning: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. In this cycle, learners experience a new concept or event, reflect on what happened, critically think about what was learned, and then apply these insights through experimentation to generate new learning opportunities (Hughes et al., 2025). Purposefully fostering the reflective observation aspect of the cycle on an SFOD-A contributes to metacognitive growth and reduces the potential for DKE or other cognitive biases.

Reflection represents a central component of Kolb’s cycle. Reflection leading to conceptualization helps individuals highlight and correct flawed reasoning. Metacognitive aptitude is central to reflection and drives learning from concrete experience to conceptual understanding and, eventually, to the future application of knowledge. Engaging learners in real-life situations enables them to internalize and transform experiences, creating opportunities for growth through critical thinking, reflection, planning, and action (Hughes et al., 2025). Cultivating insight into one’s own thinking processes and the practice of reflection reinforce behaviors that decrease cognitive biases in complex situations (Doherty & Carroll, 2020).

Some experiential means to develop metacognitive aptitude on an SFOD-A include self-reflective questioning and cognitive mapping exercises. According to Ng et al. (2011), “self-questioning plays an important role in problem-solving” (p. 91). Their study revealed that self-questioning had significant positive effects on reasoning, outcome, and problem-solving performance in relation to navigating complex, ill-structured workplace problems. Therefore, SF leaders stand to benefit by asking subordinates to reflect on training or a mission through questions such as: What assumptions did we make before the mission? What influenced our decision-making process during mission execution? How could we have approached a specific action differently?

Cognitive mapping exercises offer powerful ways to reflect and identify gaps in reasoning, thereby improving strategic thinking. This process involves visually representing a learner’s mental decision-making model or concept using diagrams or structured frameworks (Behrens et al., 2018; Gibbons, 2019). Utilizing cognitive maps enhances a learner’s problem-solving ability, deepens knowledge, and increases motivation (Wang et al., 2018). Application of cognitive mapping techniques during post-mission reflection enables SFOD-As to retrospectively analyze different perceptions and thought processes present during training, planning, or mission execution. This process adds a metacognitive aspect to the evaluation and resembles an after-action cognitive “rock drill” that helps the team understand how and why decisions occurred at each phase of the operation. Ultimately, SFOD-As actively applying any one of these tools, based on Kolb’s experiential learning theory, increases the team’s collective metacognitive aptitude and mitigates the potential effects of the DKE.

Mezirow’s Transformative Learning: Changing the Frame of Reference

Transformative learning (TL) is a theory within the framework of adult learning that helps learners change their frame of reference or challenge previous assumptions to gain a new psychological, convictional, or behavioral understanding. Developed by Jack Mezirow (see Figure 2), TL emerges when individuals encounter experiences that challenge prior knowledge and disrupt established perspectives, prompting critical reflection on underlying beliefs and the ways these beliefs shape their interpretation of the world (Bouchard, 2024). Expanding on the contributions of Knowles and others, Mezirow emphasized the adult learner’s ability to connect acquired knowledge with the construction of personal meaning (Lonie & Desai, 2015).

Additionally, TL theory helps individuals develop metacognitive and self-reflective skills (Lonie & Desai, 2015). Major transformative epistemological change involves a shift in the way an individual constructs and evaluates everyday knowledge. This requires the change in epistemic structures to be sufficiently deep, impactful, and stable over time. Shifts in metacognition, or the thoughts people have about their own mental processes, epitomize deep epistemological change. Metacognition intersects with personal epistemology by facilitating self-awareness of cognitive processes and the capacity to regulate them. Adjustments in metacognitive processes, therefore, drive epistemological changes that reshape how individuals understand their thinking, interpret experiences, and construct meaning about the world (Hoggan, 2018). The DKE represents observed variations in metacognitive processes related to intelligence (Nedelec et al., 2025). TL facilitates the teaching of metacognitive skills (Lonie & Desai, 2015), thereby mitigating DKE by transforming the ability to accurately evaluate self-competence and reducing overconfidence or misjudgment of ability (Campbell, 2025).

Three TL tools for the SFOD-A classroom include critical incident analysis, perspective-taking, and scenario-based reflection or learning. Deep reflection on critical incidents (planning processes, training events, mission execution) through after action reviews facilitate a better understanding of how prior assumptions guide decision-making. Overconfidence or lack of confidence in the uncertain and volatile conditions frequently faced by military personnel contributes to suboptimal, high-impact decisions (Juozapavičius et al., 2022). Research shows that metacognitive awareness enhances problem-solving performance within military contexts. Metacognitive teaching strategies strengthen soldiers’ problem-solving abilities (Ajan et al., 2021). Deliberate training in critical thinking skills influences post-hoc assessments of battlefield situations. Soldiers trained in metacognitive skills, such as identifying unreliable assumptions and discriminating conflicting data, demonstrated improved accuracy in formulating arguments about their battlefield conclusions (Cohen et al., 1996).

Exploring multiple perspectives during planning, training, mission execution, evaluation, and other learning events further helps combat cognitive biases. Incorporating many perspectives into these processes promotes reflection, critical and adaptive thinking, and self-awareness. Critical thinking has a direct positive effect on metacognitive aptitude, which in turn strengthens perspective-taking as a core component of empathy (Guamanga et al., 2025). As with empathy, perspective-taking is a TL means to help learners on the SFOD-A recognize intrinsic problems by examining situations from viewpoints starkly different from their usual viewpoint. Critical reflection and perspective-taking during TL allow learners to navigate dilemmas and confront cognitive biases (Southworth, 2022).

Scenario-based reflection is another influential learning tool that helps increase metacognitive ability on the SFOD-A. Merkebu et al. (2023) discuss a “trilateral relationship among metacognition, emotional regulation, and reflection under the integrative framework of metacognitive reflection” (p. 1). Miller et al. (2021) state,

Metacognitive reflection has two components: intentionally thinking about “what we know” and “how we know,” and self-regulation. Self-regulation is defined as managing how we go about leading ourselves and others, the ability to recognize and supervise our thinking processes, and the potential to perceive leadership in new ways. (p. 63)

Fiore and Vogel-Walcutt (2010) outlined how learners acquire knowledge more effectively when actively reflecting on their comprehension processes. Thus, scenario-based reflection characterizes a blend of scenario-based learning and metacognitive reflection. Scenario-based learning has long been a part of the U.S. military. Military personnel learn through simulation, physical training, decision-making, and interactive or narrative scenarios, among other methods (Salas et al., 2006).

Often, scenario-based learning uses hypothetical or past scenarios to hone metacognitive skills. These exercises reinforce the ability to assess, adapt, and make decisions in dynamic environments. SFOD-As implement this concept by incorporating scenario-based reflection into post-training or post-mission analysis to evaluate alternative hypothetical outcomes. Analyzing unrealized scenarios enables SFOD-A learners to refine their decision-making processes and expand mental flexibility for future operations. Overall, military adult education provides soldiers with the intellectual development, wisdom, and judgment necessary to make appropriate decisions and apply technical military training in novel situations (Rocco et al., 2020). These aspects of TL foster critical thinking skills, enhance metacognitive capacity, and reduce the potential for cognitive bias among SFOD-A members.

Zimmerman: Fostering Self-Regulated Learning in the Team Room

While the experiential learning theory and TL demonstrate how an SFOD-A mobilizes reflection and metacognition to drive learning, self-regulated learning (SRL) provides mechanisms for building and applying metacognitive skills to mitigate cognitive biases. SRL involves learners’ capacity to assume active control over their educational development by applying key cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Isbej et al., 2024). According to Zimmerman (2002), SRL occurs in three cyclical phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection. Self-regulated learning also nurtures three interrelated dimensions: metacognition, motivation, and strategic action. Metacognitive development increases learner awareness of personal learning strengths and weaknesses. Motivated learners feel confident in attempting challenging tasks and intrinsically believe they will be successful. Strategic action provides learners with a mental repository of learning strategies to provide adaptable and flexible options for future learning engagements. Overall, SRL affords learners an iterative means to plan, execute, reflect, and adjust thoughts or actions to achieve personal learning goals (Brenner, 2022).

Promoting a never-ending individual pursuit of knowledge, perspicacity, and self-improvement remains critical for nurturing an SFOD-A culture that supports metacognitive growth. Metacognitive practices support long-term learning by encouraging sense-making, self-assessment, and reflection on both successes and areas for improvement. Learning methods emphasizing metacognition help learners apply and adapt their knowledge to new tasks and contexts more effectively (Khachadoorian et al., 2020). Learners with well-developed metacognitive aptitude learn more and perform better than peers who are still sharpening their metacognitive abilities (Stanton et al., 2021). The U.S. Army expects soldiers to learn in three domains: institutional, operational, and self-development. Soldiers receive experience, training, and education through structured, guided, and personal self-development. Rose (2020) indicates,

Self-development is a critical aspect of leader development and individual success. It requires continuous self-assessment to determine individual gaps in skills, knowledge, and attributes to develop a personal plan to mitigate these gaps, fostering a life-long learning ethos in leaders at all levels. (p. 2)

Self-regulation supports self-development and contributes significantly to metacognitive reflection and, subsequently, an individual’s ability to learn (Fiore & Vogel-Walcutt, 2010; Merkebu et al., 2023; Miller et al., 2021).

The key takeaway for SFOD-A leadership is that strategically and intentionally enacted SRL-guided education improves team performance and reduces cognitive biases. Students who receive little SRL instruction or scaffolding often struggle to regulate their own learning. They tend to suffer from the DKE and overestimate both their abilities and their understanding of content. Without such guidance, learners are more likely to flounder or fail to make meaningful progress. Therefore, guiding SRL practices on the SFOD-A fosters the development of skills and habits that advance individual learning by promoting goal setting, progress monitoring, and performance-based adaptation. Building these abilities not only enhances task achievement but also strengthens legitimate self-efficacy, or the confidence in one’s capacity to carry out the actions necessary to reach specific goals (Craig et al., 2023). Addressing overestimations in self-efficacy directly mitigates the dual-burden DKE cognitive bias that leads to performance degradation in high-risk professions (Rubin & Froustis, 2023).

Implementing Cognitive Apprenticeship in the SF Team Room

Collins et al. (1989) introduced the cognitive apprenticeship model of learning. Cognitive apprenticeship stems from situated cognitive theory and overarching constructivist learning paradigms (Roland, 2024). Cognitive apprenticeship develops higher-order cognitive skills by emphasizing mental models and metacognitive skills rather than physical tasks. Unlike traditional apprenticeship, this methodology concentrates on teaching learners how to think, reflect, and internalize underlying cognitive processes (Matsuo & Tsukube, 2020). This social learning process relies on experts using modeling, coaching, and scaffolding to facilitate learning through guided experiences. In cognitive apprenticeship, the expert or teacher actively externalizes their thinking processes, enabling learners to observe, reflect upon, and practice them as part of skill development. Elucidating the underlying cognitive processes allows learners to transition from an observational role to become active practitioners (Wittig et al., 2022).

SFOD-A leaders implement cognitive apprenticeship in the team room through the tools of modeling, coaching, and scaffolding. Cognitive apprenticeship begins with experts modeling tasks while learners actively observe. Senior leaders on an SFOD-A strive to model subject-matter expertise so younger, less experienced members of the team can see the correct way to accomplish tasks. Coaching represents the central aspect of the cognitive apprenticeship process. Expert teachers on the SFOD-A monitor learner comprehension, support the learning process, and provide guidance (Wittig et al., 2022). Finally, expert teachers guide learners with adaptive support that they gradually withdraw or fade as competence and independence grow (Roland, 2024).

Through this form of apprenticeship, learners develop the ability to articulate their knowledge, reflect on their performance with others, and then explore other complex problems (Roland, 2024). This process aids in the development of metacognitive skills and helps individuals become more self-aware. The DKE manifests as a deficiency in metacognitive skills that impair an individual’s capacity to accurately evaluate their own performance (Magnus & Peresetsky, 2022; Sulphey & Senan, 2025). Mobilizing cognitive apprenticeship to enhance metacognitive insight within the SFOD-A directly addresses the competence–confidence paradox characteristic of the DKE.

Conclusion

The DKE poses a multifaceted challenge for this unique population of U.S. Army soldiers, making the cultivation of metacognitive aptitude essential within the SF Regiment, particularly at the SFOD-A level. By integrating adult learning tools that reduce learner resistance, amplify reflective observation, reframe perspectives, promote self-regulated learning, and foster cognitive apprenticeship in the team room, SFOD-A leaders mitigate distortions of competence and confidence associated with the DKE. These strategies not only encourage individual awareness and corrective action but also generate a cumulative effect that advances team proficiency and reinforces the collective expertise of the SF Regiment. Strengthening metacognitive aptitude at the ground level enhances the SFOD-A’s ability to learn, conduct planning, facilitate training, execute high-risk missions, and effectively evaluate each action. Ultimately, harnessing problem-solving, critical thinking, and leadership capacity by treating the SFOD-A as a nontraditional adult learning environment contributes to the SF Regiment’s enduring effectiveness in future complex operational environments.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, and analyses expressed do not represent the position of the U.S. Army or the Department of War.

---

References

 

Adrian, A. L., Novosel-Lingat, J. E. M., Toner, K. A., Crouch, C. L., & Knust, S. K. (2025). Investigating U.S. Army unit-specific psychological skills training through soldier and embedded performance expert perspectives: A mixed-method exploratory evaluation. Journal of Military Learning, 9(1), 3–21. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Journal-of-Military-Learning/Journal-of-Military-Learning-Archives/JML-April-2025/psychological-skills-training/

Ajan, J. B., Luna, C. A., & Roble, D. B. (2021). Do military students’ mathematical self-efficacy and metacognitive awareness matter on their problem solving performance? American Journal of Educational Research, 9(6), 330–334. https://www.doi.org/10.12691/education-9-6-1

Andreatta, P. B., Patel, J. A., Buzzelli, M. D., Nelson, K. J., Graybill, J. C., Jensen, S. D., Remick, K. N., Bowyer, M. W., & Gurney, J. M. (2022). Dunning-Kruger Effect between self-peer ratings of surgical performance during a MASCAL event and pre-event assessed trauma procedural capabilities. Annals of Surgery Open, 3(3), e180–e180. https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000180

Baldor, L. (2024, May 12). US special operations leaders are having to do more with less. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2024/05/12/us-special-operations-leaders-are-having-to-do-more-with-less/

Behrens, T. E. J., Muller, T. H., Whittington, J. C. R., Mark, S., Baram, A. B., Stachenfeld, K. L., & Kurth-Nelson, Z. (2018). What is a cognitive map? Organizing knowledge for flexible behavior. Neuron, 100(2), 490–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002

Bode, R., Wills, J., & Geris, N. (2019). Forging expertise: enabling resistance in tomorrow’s fight. Special Warfare, 32(2), 12–21. https://www.swcs.mil/Portals/111/32-2_APR_JUN_2019.pdf

Boogaard, K. (2024, December 3). The Dunning-Kruger effect: What it is and how to combat it. Work Life. https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/dunning-kruger-effect

Bouchard, J. (2024). Transformative learning. EBSCO Knowledge Advantage. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/transformative-learning

Bouchrika, I. (2025, June 19). The andragogy approach: Knowles’ adult learning theory principles for 2025. https://research.com/education/the-andragogy-approach#2

Brenner, C. A. (2022). Self-regulated learning, self-determination theory and teacher candidates’ development of competency-based teaching practices. Smart Learning Environments, 9(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00184-5

Burgos, R. A. (2018). Pushing the easy button: special operations forces, international security, and the use of force. Special Operations Journal, 4(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/23296151.2018.1522754

Burton, R. J. (2017). Critical thinking and SOF decision making. Special Warfare, 30(2), 8–11. https://www.swcs.mil/Portals/111/APR_JUN_2017.pdf

Campbell, J. (2025). Dunning-Kruger effect. EBSCO Knowledge Advantage. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/dunning-kruger-effect

Chauhan, C. (2024, January). Exploring metacognition. The key to exceptional leadership (Leadership Insight No. 48). Centre for Army Leadership. https://www.army.mod.uk/support-and-training/our-schools-and-colleges/centre-for-army-leadership/leadership-resources/leadership-insights/leadership-insight-no48/

Clark, A. M. (2021). Humility: The inconspicuous quality of a master of war. Military Review, 101(1), 42–47. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2021/Clark-Master-of-War/

Cohen, M. S., Freeman, J. T., Fallesen, J. J., Marvin, F. F., & Bresnick, T. A. (1996). Training critical thinking skills for battlefield situation assessment: An experimental test (Technical Report 1050). U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA320892.pdf

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooper, A. D., Warner, S. G., Rivera, A. C., Rull, R. P., Adler, A. B., Faix, D. J., Neff, R., Deagle, E. A., Caserta, R. J., & Leard Mann, C. A. (2020). Mental health, physical health, and health-related behaviors of US Army Special Forces. PLOS ONE, 15(6), Article e0233560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233560

Craig, S. D., Riddle, D. L., Lauer, S., Hughes, G. I., Elmore, W. R., Udell, C. E., Murphy, J. S, & Milham, L. M. (2023). Investigating the impact of mobile microlearning and self-regulated learning support on soldiers’ self-efficacy and retention within an army schoolhouse. Journal of Military Learning, 7(2), 29–45. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Journal-of-Military-Learning/Journal-of-Military-Learning-Archives/Conference-Edition-2023-Journal-of-Military-Learning/Mobile-Microlearning/

Croot, E. C. (2008). Sharpening the tip of the spear: Preparing Special Forces detachment commanders for the future. School of Advanced Military Studies. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA485463.pdf

Department of the Army. (2014). Special Forces operations (Field Manual 3-18).

Department of the Army. (2025). Army special operations (Field Manual 3-05).

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Doherty, T. S., & Carroll, A. E. (2020). Believing in overcoming cognitive biases. AMA Journal of Ethics, 22(9), E773–E778. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2020.773

Etherton, K. C., Bliss, J. P., & Winner, J. (2024). Self-efficacy and its miscalibration in cricothyroidotomy training. Human Factors in Healthcare (Online), 5, Article 100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hfh.2024.100066

Fackler, D. C. (2025, August 29). NCOs and warrants: We need each other. NCO Journal. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2025/August/NCOs-and-Warrants/

Fan, J. (2025). Radical ignorance and the Dunning-Kruger effect: An improved account of the logic involved. Synthese (Dordrecht), 205(6), Article 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-04953-4

Farina, E. K., Taylor, J. C., Means, G. E., Murphy, N. E., Pasiakos, S. M., Lieberman, H. R., & McClung, J. P. (2017). Effects of deployment on diet quality and nutritional status markers of elite U.S. Army special operations forces soldiers. Nutrition Journal, 16, Article 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-017-0262-5

Fiore, S., & Vogel-Walcutt, J. J. (2010). Making metacognition explicit: Developing a theoretical foundation for metacognitive prompting during scenario-based training. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 54(27), 2233–2237. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193121005402703

Flood, A., & Keegan, R. J. (2022). Cognitive resilience to psychological stress in military personnel. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 809003. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.809003

Gaeta, T. J., Reisdorff, E., Barton, M., Feldhaus, K. M., Gausche‐Hill, M., Goyal, D., Joldersma, K., Kraus, C. K., & Ankel, F. (2024). The Dunning‒Kruger effect in resident predicted and actual performance on the American Board of Emergency Medicine in‐training examination. Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open, 5(5), Article e13305. https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.13305

Garamone, J. (2024, March 18). Special ops builds on strengths as it charts future. U.S. Department of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3709741/special-ops-builds-on-strengths-as-it-charts-future/

Ghosh, S. (2025). When confidence overpowers competence: The Dunning-Kruger effect in radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 22(9), P1091–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2025.05.002

Gibbons, S. (2019, August 11). Cognitive mapping in user research. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/cognitive-mapping-user-research

Gignac, G. E. (2022). The association between objective and subjective financial literacy: Failure to observe the Dunning-Kruger effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 184, Article 111224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111224

Gignac, G. E. (2024). Rethinking the Dunning-Kruger effect: Negligible influence on a limited segment of the population. Intelligence, 104, Article 101830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2024.101830

Gignac, G. E., & Zajenkowski, M. (2020). The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data. Intelligence, 80, Article 101449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101449

Gignac, G. E., & Zajenkowski, M. (2023). Still no Dunning-Kruger effect: A reply to Hiller. Intelligence, 97, Article 101733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2023.101733

Good, J., & Rabener, M. (2021). ACLS interventional skills: Are we as good as we should be? Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants, 34(4), 40–45. https://www.doi.org/10.1097/01.JAA.0000735764.43931.0c.

Green Beret Foundation. (n.d.). Who we serve: The most complex missions. The best trained soldiers. Retrieved 20 April 2026 from https://greenberetfoundation.org/who-we-serve/

Guamanga, M. H., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., & Bueno, P. M. (2025). Critical thinking and metacognition: Pathways to empathy and psychological well-being. Journal of Intelligence, 13(3), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13030034

Haynie, M., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). A measure of adaptive cognition for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(3), 695–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00322.x

Hiller, A. (2023). Comment on Gignac and Zajenkowski, “The Dunning-Kruger effect is (mostly) a statistical artefact: Valid approaches to testing the hypothesis with individual differences data.” Intelligence, 97, Article 101732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2023.101732

Hoggan, C. (2018). The current state of transformative learning theory: A metatheory. Phronesis, 7(3), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.7202/1054405ar

Hughes, J. K., Layne, K., Kolbfleisch, D., & Misciagno, S. A. (2025). Experiential learning theory. In M. N. Ikiugu, S. D. Taff, S. Kantartzis, & N. Pollard (Eds.), Routledge companion to occupational therapy (1st ed., pp. 698–710). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003526766-56

Isbej, L., Waterval, D., Riquelme, A., Véliz, C., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2024). In experts’ words: Translating theory to practice for teaching self-regulated learning. Medical Teacher, 47(4), 646–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2359970

Juozapavičius, A., Sütterlin, S., & Lugo, R. G. (2022). Towards a metacognitive accuracy training in military education. In C. Stephanidis, M. Antona, & S. Ntoa (Eds.), HCI International 2022 Posters: HCII 2022, Vol. 1581 Communications in Computer and Information Science (pp. 169–176). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06388-6_20

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608322678

King, J. (2017). Special Forces (SF) soldiers training: A pre-emptive approach to stress management using emotional intelligence (EI). Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.438

Khachadoorian, A. A., Steen, S. L., & Mackenzie, L. B. (2020). Metacognition and the military student: pedagogical considerations for teaching senior officers in professional military education. Journal of Military Learning, 4(1), 3–18. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/journal-of-military-learning/Archives/April-2020/Khachadoorian-Military-Student.pdf

Klein, D., Cunningham, A., & Buchanan, E. M. (2018). How metacognitive awareness relates to overconfidence in interval judgments. International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities, 10(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.7710/2168-0620.1109

Kleitman, S., Hui, J. S.-W., & Jiang, Y. (2019). Confidence to spare: Individual differences in cognitive and metacognitive arrogance and competence. Metacognition and Learning, 14(3), 479–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09210-x

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Koven, B. S., & Mason, C. (2021). Back to the future: Getting Special Forces ready for great-power competition. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2021/05/back-to-the-future-getting-special-forces-ready-for-great-power-competition/

Krueger, J., & Mueller, R. A. (2002). Unskilled, unaware, or both? The need for more process measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.189

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://www.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

Küçükkaragöz, H., & Meylani, R. (2023, December 16–17). Resistance to learning: A comprehensive review of contributing factors. 18th International Scientific Research Congress - Social and Educational Sciences (UBAK), Ankara, Türkiye.

Küçükkaragöz, H., & Meylani, R. (2025). Resistance to learning: Reasons and remedies via a qualitative research synthesis. Journal of Education and Learning, 19(1), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v19i1.21904

Leonard, S. (2020, July 7). The confident idiot: Leadership, self-awareness, and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Clearance Jobs. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/07/07/the-confident-idiot-leadership-self-awareness-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect/

Lonie, J. M., & Desai, K. R. (2015). Using transformative learning theory to develop metacognitive and self-reflective skills in pharmacy students: A primer for pharmacy educators. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(5), 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.06.002

Magnus, J. R., & Peresetsky, A. A. (2022). A statistical explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 840180–840180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180

Malvesti, M. L. (2010). To serve the nation: U.S. special operations forces in an era of persistent conflict. Center for a New American Security. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep06299

Matsuo, M., & Tsukube, T. (2020). A review on cognitive apprenticeship in educational research: Application for management education. The International Journal of Management Education, 18(3), Article 100417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100417

McGurk, M. (2021, June 29). More than just friends: The strategic advantage of enduring relationships. Modern War Institute. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/more-than-just-friends-the-strategic-advantage-of-enduring-relationships/

Merkebu, J., Kitsantas, A., Durning, S. J., & Ma, T. (2023). What is metacognitive reflection? The moderating role of metacognition on emotional regulation and reflection. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1166195

Mezirow, J. (1978a). Education for perspective transformation: Women’s re-entry programs in community colleges. Columbia University.

Mezirow, J. (1978b). Perspective transformation. Adult Education, 28(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171367802800202

Miller, T., Tice, J., & Brabson, T. (2021). Metacognitive reflection: The framework for facilitating reflective practice during the Coast Guard midgrade officer and civilian transition course. Journal of Military Learning, 5(2), 61–77. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Journal-of-Military-Learning/Journal-of-Military-Learning-Archives/October-2021/Miller-Metacognitive-Reflection/

Moore, B. (2019, June 6). SOF truths & imperatives - a different kind of values statement: QMN031. The Quartermaster. https://quartermaster.substack.com/p/the-quartermaster-thursday-6-june

Moritz, S., & Lysaker, P. H. (2018). Metacognition – What did James H. Flavell really say and the implications for the conceptualization and design of metacognitive interventions. Schizophrenia Research, 201, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2018.06.001

Muller, A., Sirianni, L. A., & Addante, R. J. (2021). Neural correlates of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 53(2), 460–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14935

Nakamura, T., & Lau, H. (2025). Perceptual metacognition beyond confidence. Neuron, 113(15), 2377–2379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2025.07.011

Navarro, J., Multon, M., Petit, M., Ouimet, M. C., & Reynaud, E. (2025). We all fall for it: Influence of driving experience, level of cognitive control engaged and actual exposure to the driving situations on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Transportation Research Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 109, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.11.021

Nedelec, J. L., Dunkel, C. S., & van der Linden, D. (2025). Heritability of metacognitive judgement of intelligence: A twin study on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Intelligence, 111, Article 101931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2025.101931

Ng, K. H., Lee, C. B., & Teo, T. (2011). The role of self-questioning: Problem solving in a security organization. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1062

Pavel, S. R., Robertson, M. F., & Harrison, B. T. (2012). The Dunning-Kruger effect and SIUC university’s aviation students. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, 2(1), Article 6. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jate/vol2/iss1/6

Persyn, J. M., & Polson, C. J. (2012). Evolution and influence of military adult education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 136, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20031

Pierson, D. (2017). Reengineering Army education for adult learners. Journal of Military Learning, 1(2), 31–43. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/journal-of-military-learning/Archives/Pierson-Reengineering-Army-Education.pdf

Rahmani, M. (2020). Medical trainees and the Dunning-Kruger effect: When they don’t know what they don’t know. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 12(5), 532–534. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-00134.1

Rivera, A. C., LeardMann, C. A., Rull, R. P., Cooper, A., Warner, S., Faix, D., Deagle, E., Neff, R., Caserta, R., Adler, A. B., & Capaldi, V. F. (2022). Combat exposure and behavioral health in U.S. Army Special Forces. PLOS ONE, 17(6), Article e0270515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270515

Rocco, T. S., Smith, M. C., Mizzi, R. C., Merriweather, L. R., & Hawley, J. D. (Eds.). (2020). The Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. Routledge.

Roland, A. R. (2024, April 5). Promoting self-development through unit training. NCO Journal. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/nco-journal/images/2024/April/Unit-Training/Promoting%20Self-Development.pdf

Rose, D. (2020, March 12). Unit training management. NCO Journal. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2020/March/Unit-Training-Management/

Rubin, A., & Froustis, E. (2023). How the Dunning-Kruger effect impairs professional judgement in high-risk professions. Journal of Student Research, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v12i4.5623

Sacquety, T. J. (2023). The evolution of the Special Forces (SF) operational detachment-alpha (ODA). Veritas, 19(1), 23–27. https://arsof-history.org/articles/v19n1_evolution_of_the_special_forces_oda_page_1.html

Salas, E., Priest, H. A., Wilson, K. A., & Burke, C. S. (2006). Scenario-based training: improving military mission performance and adaptability. In A. B. Adler, C. A. Castro, & T. W. Britt (Eds.), Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat: Operational stress (pp. 32–53). Praeger Security International.

Schlosser, T., Dunning, D., Johnson, K. L., & Kruger, J. (2013). How unaware are the unskilled? Empirical tests of the “signal extraction” counter-explanation for the Dunning-Kruger effect in self-evaluation of performance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.004

Shabnam, N. (2019). Malcolm Knowles’ theory of andragogy: Implications in life long education. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 6(2), 343–349. https://ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19K9694.pdf

Siems, J. (2016). Disaster threat and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Homeland Security Affairs.

Silveira, L. (2024, April 30). The Dunning-Kruger effect and the combat shooting. ABA Intl. https://www.abaintl.us/the-dunning-kruger-effect-and-the-combat-shooting/

Southworth, J. (2022). Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of perspective-taking. Theory and Research in Education, 20(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785221090853

Stanton, J. D., Sebesta, A. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE Life Sciences Education, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289

Steel, B. (2022, November 27). Raising cultural intelligence through metacognition: Preparing tomorrow’s Air Force for the complexities of cross-cultural engagement. Journal of the Americas. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JOTA/Articles/Category/23245/

Stojiljković, E., Bozilov, A., Golubovic, T., & Glisovic, S. (2018). Human error prevention by training design: Suppressing the Dunning-Kruger effect in its infancy. In P. M. Arezes, J. S. Baptista, M. P. Barroso, P. Carneiro, N. Costa, R. B. Melo, A. S. Miguel, & G. Perestrelo (Eds.), Occupational Safety and Hygiene VI (pp. 219–224). CRC Press.

Stuart, M. (2024, September 26). The psychology of hubris in disaster response. https://dosomethingffs.com/2024/09/26/the-psychology-of-hubris-in-disaster-response/

Sulphey, M. M., & Senan, N. A. M. (2025). Miscalibrations in self-evaluation: The influence of Dunning–Kruger Effect among educators. Higher Education for the Future, 13(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/23476311251348773

TED-Ed. (2017, November 9). Why incompetent people think they’re amazing [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E

Tezer, M. (Ed.). (2024). Metacognition in learning: New perspectives. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107819

Wang, M., Wu, B., Kirschner, P. A., & Michael Spector, J. (2018). Using cognitive mapping to foster deeper learning with complex problems in a computer-based environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.024

White, S. S., Mueller-Hanson, R. A., Dorsey, D. W., Pulakos, E. D., Wisecarver, M. M., Deagle, E. A., III, & Mendini, K. G. (2005). Developing adaptive proficiency in Special Forces officers (Research Report 1831). U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA432443.pdf

Wittig, A. H., Geers, S. T., Dyer, D. J., Diedrich, F. J., Brou, R. J., Knott, C. C., & Chik, K. C. (2022). The potential of cognitive apprenticeship: A review of best practices for instructor certification in the Maneuver Captains Career Course (Technical Report 1414). U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1181144.pdf

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

   

Back to Top

June 2026