Comprehension Monitoring and the Error Detection Paradigm

The purpose of this study was to examine the conditions which were likely to facilitate error detection. It was hypothesized that poor readers' comprehension monitoring abilities would improve if they were given assistance in selecting the appropriate schema for understanding a passage. In order to test the hypothesis, we used a standard paradigm: the error detection task. No evidence was found to support the notion that schema activation would significantly improve poor readers' error detection abilities. However, results did indicate that, while good readers were significantly better at this task than were poor readers, a surprising number of children failed to report some very blatant errors. Although these results are in agreement with earlier studies using the same task, we felt uneasy in drawing the conclusion that sixth graders are lacking in metacognitive abilities. Instead, we have expanded the discussion to include our thoughts on the limitations and difficulties in the use of the error detection paradigm itself. Five major concerns were identified and suggestions for improving future comprehension monitoring studies were made. Some alternative methodologies were also considered.

[1]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[2]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports as data. , 1980 .

[3]  P. A. Weaver,et al.  Theory and practice of early reading , 1979 .

[4]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  M. Clay Reading: The Patterning of Complex Behaviour , 1977 .

[6]  L. Baker,et al.  Comprehension Monitoring: Identifying and Coping with Text Confusions1 , 1979 .

[7]  E. Markman Realizing that you don't understand: elementary school children's awareness of inconsistencies. , 1979, Child development.

[8]  Jerry L. Johns,et al.  Reading: Children Tell It Like It Is. , 1976 .

[9]  George F. Canney,et al.  Schemata for Reading and Reading Comprehension Performance. Technical Report No. 120. , 1979 .

[10]  Rand J. Spiro,et al.  Individual Differences in Schema Utilization during Discourse Processing. Technical Report No. 111. , 1980 .

[11]  George F. Canney,et al.  Schemata for reading and reading comprehension performance , 1979 .

[12]  John Downing,et al.  How Children Think About Reading. , 1969 .

[13]  F. Danner,et al.  Children's Understanding of Intersentence Organization in the Recall of Short Descriptive Passages. , 1976 .

[14]  Ron Reis,et al.  Monitoring and Resolving Comprehension Obstacles: An Investigation of Spontaneous Text Lookbacks among Upper-Grade Good and Poor Comprehenders. , 1981 .

[15]  Ellen M. Markman,et al.  Realizing That You Don't Understand: A Preliminary Investigation. , 1977 .

[16]  Francis J. Di Vesta,et al.  Developmental Trends in Monitoring Text for Comprehension. , 1979 .

[17]  Joseph H. Danks,et al.  Oral Reading: Does It Reflect Decoding or Comprehension?. , 1976 .

[18]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Rating the Importance of Structural Units of Prose Passages: A Problem of Metacognitive Development. , 1977 .

[19]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  The Effects of Experience on the Selection of Suitable Retrieval Cues for Studying Texts. , 1978 .

[20]  Ann L. Brown Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember: A Problem of Metacognition. Technical Report No. 47. , 1977 .

[21]  D. Kuhn Inducing Development Experimentally: Comments on a Research Paradigm. , 1974 .

[22]  R. Glaser Advances in Instructional Psychology , 1978 .