Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing?

In 4 experiments, the authors evaluated the hypothesis that performance predictions for text are based on ease of processing. In each experiment, participants read texts, predicted their performance for each one, and then were tested. Ease of processing was manipulated by having participants read texts that varied in coherence. Coherence was varied by manipulating causal relatedness across sentence pairs (Experiments 1 and 2) and by altering the structure of sentences within paragraphs (Experiment 3). In these experiments, prediction magnitudes increased as coherence increased, suggesting that predictions were based on processing ease. In Experiment 4, prediction magnitudes were greater for intact paragraphs than for paragraphs with letters deleted from some of the words. Discussion focuses on resolving apparent inconsistencies in the literature concerning whether processing ease influences performance predictions.

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

[2]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A Guide to Propositional Analysis for Research on Technical Prose. , 1981 .

[3]  L. Brooks,et al.  Nonanalytic Cognition: Memory, Perception, and Concept Learning , 1984 .

[4]  M. McDaniel,et al.  The role of elaborative and schema processes in story memory , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[5]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  S. Duffy,et al.  Degree of causal relatedness and memory , 1987 .

[7]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Improving children's regulation of their reading PREP time☆ , 1989 .

[8]  Ian Begg,et al.  Memory predictions are based on ease of processing , 1989 .

[9]  Carl Craig Morris,et al.  Retrieval processes underlying confidence in comprehension judgments. , 1990 .

[10]  J. Hummel,et al.  Causality and the allocation of attention during comprehension. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension , 1990 .

[12]  B. K. Britton,et al.  Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. , 1991 .

[13]  Barbara A. Spellman,et al.  When Predictions Create Reality: Judgments of Learning May Alter What They Are Intended to Assess , 1992 .

[14]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Failures to Detect Contradictions in a Text: What Readers Believe versus what they Read , 1992 .

[15]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  The basis of test predictions for text material. , 1992 .

[16]  Hiller A. Spires,et al.  Learning from a lecture: Effects of comprehension monitoring. , 1992 .

[17]  S. Schneider,et al.  Do we know what we've learned from listening to the news? , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[18]  Bennett L. Schwartz,et al.  Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. , 1994 .

[19]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Does the Sensitivity of Judgments of Learning (JOLs) to the Effects of Various Study Activities Depend on When the JOLs Occur , 1994 .

[20]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Metacognition : knowing about knowing , 1994 .

[21]  R H Maki,et al.  The relationship between comprehension and metacomprehension ability , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  R. Maki.  ACCURACY OF METACOMPREHENSION JUDGMENTS FOR QUESTIONS OF VARYING IMPORTANCE LEVELS , 1995 .

[23]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[24]  E. J. O'Brien,et al.  Sources of coherence in reading , 1995 .

[25]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[26]  A. Koriat.  Monitoring one's own knowledge during study : A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning , 1997 .

[27]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Discourse comprehension. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[28]  Bennett L. Schwartz,et al.  The Inferential and Experiential Bases of Metamemory , 1997 .

[29]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[30]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[31]  R. Bjork,et al.  The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Situation models in language comprehension and memory. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  Keith K. Millis,et al.  Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[34]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  Test predictions over text material. , 1998 .

[35]  C. Hertzog,et al.  Adults' Efficacy and Control Beliefs Regarding Memory and Aging: Separating General from Personal Beliefs , 1998 .

[36]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. , 1998 .

[37]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[38]  W. Kelemen,et al.  Metamemory Cues and Monitoring Accuracy: Judging What You Know and What You Will Know , 2000 .

[39]  Evelyn C. Ferstl.  Learning from Text , 2001 .

[40]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Fluency of retrieval at study affects judgments of learning (JOLs): An analytic or nonanalytic basis for JOLs? , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[41]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Influences of metamemory on performance predictions for text , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.