Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flexible self-regulated reading as a cue for deep comprehension: evidence from online and offline measures

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Being a skilled reader means being able to process a text both superficially and deeply. However, international assessments show that 15 year-old students continue to have difficulty in understanding a text deeply. The aim of this study was to examine the differentiated contribution of several facets of self-regulation in the understanding of a text at different levels among skilled and less-skilled readers. To this end, we collected both online (reading traces) and offline (metacognitive judgments) data. The reading processes of 55 final-year secondary school students (15–16 years old) were captured while reading an expository text. Afterwards they answered superficial and deep comprehension questions and judged their level of confidence in their answers after each question. The accuracy of these judgments was determined through the calculation of bias indices. Analyses of the students’ online reading traces enabled us to identify four distinct patterns of processes: Linear reading, linear rereading, linear reading with selective rereading, and reading with online rereading. Overall, less-skilled readers approached the text more linearly and routinely, while skilled readers were more flexible. Furthermore, offline bias measures were lower for superficial (vs. deep) comprehension questions and for skilled (vs. less-skilled) readers. Online and offline measures were significantly interrelated pointing to a common underlying skill. Last but not least, both online and offline measures significantly predicted performance beyond readers’ comprehension skill, but played different roles in superficial and deep comprehension. These findings highlight the importance of self-regulated comprehension, especially the role of active online monitoring when reading for deep comprehension.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., & Kim, J.-Y. (2011). The assessment of higher order thinking in reading. In G. Schraw & D. R. Robinson (Eds.), Assessment of higher order thinking skills (pp. 185–217). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying the differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373. doi:10.1598/RT.61.5.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Woods, B. S., Duhon, K. E., & Parker, D. (1997). College instruction and concomitant changes in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 125–146. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Simpson, M. (2006). Teaching and learning in reading. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 427–455). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 951–983). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 321–348. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehl, D. (2014). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. Newark, DE: IRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 30–41. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, K. B. (2009). The role of cognitive flexibility in reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 115–139). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, E. S., Therriault, D. J., & Franks, B. A. (2010). Individual differences in relative metacomprehension accuracy: Variation within and across task manipulations. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 121–135. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9052-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutke, S., Barenberg, J., & Leopold, C. (2010). Learning from text: Knowing the test format enhanced metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 195–206. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9057-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J. A. (1989). Improving readers’ estimates of learning from text: The role of inserted questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 68–75. doi:10.1080/19388078909557976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., & Durán, R. P. (1988). Answering questions from oceanography texts: Learner, task and text characteristics. Discourse Processes, 11, 373–412. doi:10.1080/01638538809544710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J. F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading—From words to multiple texts (pp. 180–199). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1990). Flexibility in text processing: A strategy competition model. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 181–219. doi:10.1016/1041-6080(90)90022-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golinkoff, R. M. (1976). A comparison of reading comprehension processes in good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, XI, 623–659. doi:10.2307/747459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44–55. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., Jonas, D., & Kallod, M. (1994). The relationship between comprehension and metacomprehension ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 126–129. doi:10.3758/BF03200769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & McGuire, M. J. (2002). Metacognition for text: Findings and implications for education. In T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 39–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. (2009). Self-regulated comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 389–399). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mateos, M., Martín, E., Villalón, R., & Luna, M. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in education: Online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 675–697. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9086-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mateos, M. & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesizing information from various texts: a study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 435–451. doi:10.1007/BF03178760.

  • Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125–173). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, J., & Shucksmith, J. (1986). Learning strategies. Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2014). PISA 2002 results: What students know and can do—Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. I). PISA: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264201118-en.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 399–438. doi:10.1080/07370000701632371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieschl, S. (2009). Metacognitive calibration –an extended conceptualization and potential applications. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 3–31. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9030-4.

  • Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2013). Adaptation to context as core component of self-regulated learning. The example of complexity and epistemic beliefs. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies (pp. 53–65). New York: Springer.

  • Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Ghatala, E. S., Woloshyn, V., & Pirie, J. (1990). Sometimes adults miss the main ideas and do not realize it: Confidence in responses to short-answer and multiple-choice comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 232–249. doi:10.2307/748004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 265–286). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J.-F., Vidal-Abarca, E., Bert-Erboul, A., & Millogo, V. (2001). Effects of information search tasks on the comprehension of instructional text. Discourse Processes, 31, 163–186. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3102_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107–117. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00441.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive judgments. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 33–45. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Gagne, D. D., Morrow, D. G., & DeWall, B. H. (2004). Age differences in rereading. Memory and Cognition, 32, 696–710. doi:10.3758/BF03195860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14, 619–638. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., Martínez, T., & Sellés, P. (2007). Test de Estrategias de Comprensión. Madrid, Spain: ICCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817–826. doi:10.1037/a0020062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., et al. (2011). Recording online processes in task-oriented reading with Read&Answer. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 43, 179–192. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0032-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408–428. doi:10.3200/GENP.132.4.408-428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00006-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Comissionat per a Universitats i Recerca del DIUE de la Generalitat de Catalunya and the European Social Funds (2010FI_B2 00092). We gratefully thank the schools, teachers, and students who participated in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron, 171, 08035, Barcelona, Spain

    Marta Minguela & Isabel Solé

  2. Institute for Psychology, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany

    Stephanie Pieschl

Authors
  1. Marta Minguela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabel Solé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Pieschl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Minguela.

Appendix: Sample items for the reading comprehension questions

Appendix: Sample items for the reading comprehension questions

Superficial comprehension question

According to the text, the United Nations was primarily created to maintain

  1. a.

    military cooperation among member states in case of conflict

  2. b.

    veto power

  3. c.

    peace

  4. d.

    the League of Nations

Deep comprehension question

Considering the consequences of war explained in the text, why do you think that one of the principal goals reflected in the UN charter deals with the maintenance of human rights?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Minguela, M., Solé, I. & Pieschl, S. Flexible self-regulated reading as a cue for deep comprehension: evidence from online and offline measures. Read Writ 28, 721–744 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9547-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9547-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation