Putting the Comprehension in Metacomprehension

The purpose of the present study was to integrate some current theories of text comprehension with the body of work on metacomprehension, and especially the calibration of comprehension monitoring. This article explores some important methodological and conceptual issues, inspired by current theories in the text comprehension literature, which suggest that the nature of the texts used for metacomprehension studies may be a critical, and currently unrecognized, factor that should be considered. First, we need to re-examine what we mean by "comprehension," and how we should measure it. There are important differences between memory for text and comprehension of text that need to be considered. Second, to fully deal with these concerns, we need to pay more attention to the kinds of expository text that are being used, the different ways in which readers may understand these texts, and how readers may interpret the concept of "understanding" as they make their judgments.

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

[2]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[3]  E. Lovelace.  Metamemory: Monitoring Future Recallability During Study , 1984 .

[4]  B. Meyer.  The organization of prose and its effects on memory , 1975 .

[5]  P. Winne,et al.  Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis , 1995 .

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

[7]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Memory for prose: The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing. , 1984 .

[8]  P. Broek.  The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. , 1990 .

[9]  David J. Therriault,et al.  Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. , 2003 .

[10]  A. Glenberg,et al.  The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension , 1982 .

[11]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The Construction of Causal Inferences While Reading Expository Texts on Science and Technology , 1998 .

[12]  John A. Glover,et al.  Improving readers’ estimates of learning from text: The role of inserted questions , 1989 .

[13]  K. Zabrucky,et al.  Calibration of Comprehension: Research and Implications for Education and Instruction. , 1998, Contemporary educational psychology.

[14]  J. Rönnberg,et al.  Comprehension Calibration and Recall Prediction Accuracy of Texts: Reading Skill, Reading Strategies, and Effort. , 1995 .

[15]  Simon Garrod,et al.  The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. , 1998 .

[16]  Eugene B. Zechmeister,et al.  Judgments of knowing: The influence of retrieval practice. , 1980 .

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

[18]  Jeffrey J. Walczyk,et al.  Effects of examples and embedded questions on the accuracy of comprehension self-assessments , 1989 .

[19]  Kathryn Boar.  Text representations , 1990 .

[20]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension , 1990 .

[21]  M. Serra,et al.  Role of Practice Tests in the Accuracy of Test Predictions on Text Material. , 1992 .

[22]  W. Kintsch.  Text comprehension, memory, and learning. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[23]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Perceived Readiness for Examination Performance (PREP) Produced by Initial Reading of Text and Text Containing Adjunct Questions. , 1987 .

[24]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Knowledge Organization and Text Organization , 1987 .

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

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

[27]  T. O. Nelson.  Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings , 1990 .

[28]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension. , 1982 .

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

[30]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events , 1985 .

[31]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[32]  R. Maki.  Predicting performance on text: Delayed versus immediate predictions and tests , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[33]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2001 .

[34]  Thomas Sanocki,et al.  Enhancing Calibration of Comprehension , 1987 .

[35]  Bonnie J. F. Meyer,et al.  Effects of Discourse Type on Recall , 1984 .

[36]  Gregg T. Vesonder,et al.  On the ability to predict one's own responses while learning , 1985 .

[37]  Arthur M. Glenberg,et al.  Calibration of Comprehension , 1985 .

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

[39]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. , 1999 .

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

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

[42]  Lisa K. Son,et al.  Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[43]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[44]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Measuring Self-Regulated Learning , 2000 .

[45]  Eugene B. Zechmeister,et al.  Memory-monitoring accuracy as influenced by the distribution of retrieval practice , 1992 .

[46]  R H Maki,et al.  Metacomprehension of text material. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  Jerome L. Myers,et al.  Availability and Accessibility of Information and Causal Inferences From Scientific Text , 2003 .

[48]  Keith W. Thiede,et al.  Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy , 2003 .

[49]  Reading Expository Material , 1982 .

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

[51]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. , 1999 .

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

[53]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Causal relatedness and importance of story events , 1985 .

[54]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories , 1989 .

[55]  Comprehension-Monitoring Failure in Skilled Adult Readers. , 1986 .

[56]  Karen M. Zabrucky,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS' CALIBRATION OF COMPREHENSION AND CALIBRATION OF PERFORMANCE USING MULTIPLE MEASURES , 2001 .

[57]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Supporting Understanding Through Task and Browser Design , 2001 .

[58]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. , 1989 .

[59]  David A. Balota.  Comprehension Processes in Reading. , 1990 .

[60]  Karen M. Zabrucky,et al.  The Relations among Interest, Self-Assessed Comprehension, and Comprehension Performance in Young Adults. , 1996 .

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

[62]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  When People's Judgments of Learning (JOLs) are Extremely Accurate at Predicting Subsequent Recall: The “Delayed-JOL Effect” , 1991 .

[63]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  The Impact of Comprehension Instruction on the Calibration of Comprehension. , 1993 .