Abstract
The typical finding of metacomprehension studies is that accuracy in monitoring one’s own level of understanding is quite poor. In the present experiments, monitoring accuracy was constrained by individual differences in both reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity (WMC), but rereading particularly benefited low-ability and low-WMC readers, effectively eliminating the relationship between monitoring accuracy and these reader characteristics. In addition, introducing a self-explanation reading strategy improved the accuracy of all the readers above mere rereading. The observed interaction between individual differences and rereading is interpreted in terms of concurrent-processing constraints involved in monitoring while text is processed, whereas the more general self-explanation effect is interpreted in terms of accessibility of valid, performance-predicting cues.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metacognitive index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55–68.
Bol, A. S., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 133–151.
Bol, A. S., Hacker D. J., O’Shea, P., & Dwight, A. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 269–290.
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786.
Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis for the rereading effect. Discourse Processes, 40, 37–55.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2002). Metacomprehension of science text: Investigating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 255–279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 551–565.
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, P. M., & Mandl, H. (1984). Learner, text variables, and control of text comprehension and recall. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 213–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Glenberg, M. A., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 702–718.
Glover, J. A. (1989). Improving readers’ estimates of learning from text: The role of inserted questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 68–75.
Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Text prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 75–91.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Learning from text. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349–370.
Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345–391.
Magliano, J. P., Millis, K., Ozurub, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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. 117–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 4, 663–679.
Maki, R. H., Holder, E. W., & McGuire, M. J. (2001, November). Metacomprehension of text: A test of the optimum effort hypothesis. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
Maki, R. H., Jonas, D., & Kallod, M. (1994). The relationship between comprehension and metacomprehension ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 126–129.
Maki, R. H., Shields, M., Wheeler, A., & Zacchilli, T. (2005). Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 723–731.
Maki, R. H., & Swett, S. (1987). Metamemory for narrative text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 72–83.
McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.
Millis, K. K., Simon, S., & tenBroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of science texts. Memory & Cognition, 26, 232–246.
Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measure of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133.
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Gamma is a measure of the accuracy of predicting performance on one item relative to another item, not of the absolute performance on an individual item. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 395–411.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic Press.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalf & A. P. Shimanura (Eds.), Metacognition (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pressley, M., Snyder, B. A., Levin, J. R., Murray, H. G., & Ghatala, E. S. (1987). Perceived readiness for examination performance (PREP) produced by initial reading of text and text containing adjunct questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 219–236.
Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 8, 69–80.
Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004–1010.
Royer, J. M., Carlo, M., Dufresne, T., & Mestre, J. (1996). The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 373–408.
Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. Mackinnon, & T. G. Walker (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 57–110). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2004, April). Students’ insights into comprehension monitoring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73.
Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of selfregulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and selfpaced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 1024–1037.
Thiede, K. W., Dunlosky, J., Griffin, T. D., & Wiley, J. (2005). Understanding the delayed keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1267–1280.
Weaver, C. A. (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 214–222.
Weaver, C. A., Bryant, D. S., & Burns, K. D. (1995). Comprehension monitoring: Extensions of the Kintsch and van Dijk model. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 177–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408–428.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.
Yuill, N., & Oakhill. J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant R305H030170 from the Institute of Educational Sciences, Cognition and Student Learning Program. Any opinions, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding organization.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Griffin, T.D., Wiley, J. & Thiede, K.W. Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition 36, 93–103 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.93
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.93