Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Knowing what you know: improving metacomprehension and calibration accuracy in digital text

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents results from an experimental study that examined embedded strategy prompts in digital text and their effects on calibration and metacomprehension accuracies. A sample population of 80 college undergraduates read a digital expository text on the basics of photography. The most robust treatment (mixed) read the text, generated a summary for each page of text, and then was prompted with a metacognitive strategy. The metacognitive treatment received metacognitive strategy prompts only, and the cognitive group implemented the cognitive strategy (summarization) only. A control group read the text with no embedded support. Groups were compared on measures of achievement, attitudes, cognitive load, and metacomprehension and calibration accuracy. Results indicated that a combination of embedded cognitive and metacognitive strategies in digital text improved learner achievement on application-level questions, yielded more accurate predictive calibration, and strengthened the relationship between metacomprehension and performance, all of which are common attributes of an academically successful learner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. doi:10.1037/a0022086.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128(1), 110–118. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, R. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 829–835. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2011). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9167-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2012). Calibration research: Where do we go from here? Frontiers in Psychology, 3(229), 1–6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O’Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 269–290. doi:10.3200/JEXE.73.4.269-290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., Riggs, R., Hacker, D. J., Dickerson, D., & Nunnery, J. A. (2010). The calibration accuracy of middle school students in math classes. Journal of Research in Education, 21, 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, E. S., Therriault, D. J., & Franks, B. A. (2009). Individual differences in relative metacomprehension accuracy: Variation within and across task manipulations. Metacognition Learning, 5(2), 121–135. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9052-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, A. (1994). Designing usable electronic text: Ergonomic aspects of human information usage. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 109–118. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.70.2.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., & Fiore, S. (2012). Differential impact of two types of metacognitive prompting provided during simulation-based training. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 696–702. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.34.10.906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 104–121. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 702–718. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.11.1-4.702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. Jonassen & Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 719–743). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 101–121. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9021-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsey, A., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1992). Using elaboration strategies training in computer-based instruction to promote generative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(2), 125–135. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(92)90054-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1985). Relating cognitive styles to independent study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 12(4), 271–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junco, R., & Cotton, S. (2011). Perceived academic effects of instant messaging use. Computers & Education, 56(2), 370–378. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: Some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.2.189-192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 629–648. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C., Poe, F., Potter, M., Quigley, B., & Wilson, J. (2011). UC libraries academic e-book usage survey. UC Office of the President: California Digital Library. Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4vr6n902.

  • Lin, L.-M., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345–391. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L.-M., Zabrucky, K., & Moore, D. (1997). The relations among interest, self-assessed comprehension, and comprehension performance in young adults. Reading Research and Instruction, 36(2), 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H. (1998). Test predictions over text material. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 663–679. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.10.4.663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., Foley, J. M., Kajer, W. K., Thompson, R. C., & Willert, M. G. (1990). Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 609–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Serra, M. (1992). The basis of test predictions for text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 116–126. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.18.1.116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. R., Nutting, A. W., & Baker-Eveleth, L. (2012). The determinants of electronic textbook use among college students. Cornell Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved from http://author.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/upload/cheri_wp147.pdf.

  • Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of feeling-of-knowing accuracy. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.95.1.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigney, J. W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In J. H. F. O’Neill (Ed.), Learning strategies (pp. 165–206). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647–658. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (2009). Measuring metacognitive judgments. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 415–429). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schugar, J. T., Schugar, H., & Penny, C. (2011). A nook or a book: Comparing college students’ reading comprehension level, critical reading, and study skills. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 174–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder: The effects of prompting self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 132–144. doi:10.1037/a0018080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spehn, M. K., & Reder, L. M. (2000). The unconscious feeling of knowing: A commentary on Koriat’s paper. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 187–192. doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Boom, G., Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J., & van Gog, T. (2004). Reflection prompts and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students’ self-regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 551–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2010). Effects of concurrent monitoring on cognitive load and performance as a function of task complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 584–587. doi:10.1002/acp.1726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J., & Busato, V. V. (1994). Metacognitive mediation in learning with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J. J., & Hall, V. C. (1989). Effects of examples and embedded questions on the accuracy of comprehension self-assessments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 435–437. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.81.3.435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digial textbooks. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 408–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C., & Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 489–502. doi:10.2307/1162933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. English Department, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, 29526, USA

    Alan J. Reid

  2. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Gary R. Morrison & Linda Bol

Authors
  1. Alan J. Reid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary R. Morrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda Bol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan J. Reid.

Appendix: Metacognitive prompt questions

Appendix: Metacognitive prompt questions

Self-monitoring questions

  1. 1.

    Am I distracted during learning the material?

  2. 2.

    Am I focusing my mental effort on the material?

  3. 3.

    Do I have any thoughts unrelated to the material that interfere with my ability to focus on the text?

  4. 4.

    Are the summaries I am generating helping me to learn the material? (applicable only to the subgroup experiencing Cognitive—Metacognitive prompting sequence).

  5. 5.

    Do I understand all of the main points?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reid, A.J., Morrison, G.R. & Bol, L. Knowing what you know: improving metacomprehension and calibration accuracy in digital text. Education Tech Research Dev 65, 29–45 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9454-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9454-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation