Abstract
Metacomprehension refers to the ability to monitor and control reading comprehension. It is important for individuals to be accurate in their judgments of comprehension, as this can affect academic performance. One type of accuracy, relative accuracy, tends to be low, meaning individuals cannot adequately differentiate well-known from less well-known information. Fortunately, past research has shown that relative accuracy increases with delayed summarization. The literature has only assessed written summaries as an intervention, but oral summaries tend to be faster and easier and therefore may be a better study tool. Individuals use cues to make judgments, which may differ between modalities. This study investigated whether modality impacts relative accuracy and if differences in cue use might explain these effects. We found that written summaries benefitted relative accuracy compared to a control group, with relative accuracy greater than chance. In contrast, oral summarizers only marginally differed from chance accuracy and did not differ from the control group. An analysis of summary characteristics suggests that participants use multiple cues in order to make judgments. We conclude that spoken summaries are likely better than not summarizing at all, but the written modality is the better summary technique to increase relative accuracy. By increasing relative accuracy, delayed written summaries may increase effectiveness of studying, thereby maximizing a student’s academic potential.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data will be made available on Open Science Framework.
Code availability
Code will be made available on Open Science Framework.
References
Alterman, R. (1991). Understanding and summarization. Artificial Intelligence Review, 5(4), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00141756
Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Pyschologica, 128(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.006
Baker, J. M., & Dunlosky, J. (2006). Does momentary accessibility influence metacomprehension judgements? The influence of study-judgment lags on accessibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193813
Bausell, R. B., & Li, Y. (2002). Power analysis for experimental research: A practical guide for the biological, medical and social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). This mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(1), 5–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych113011-143823
Board, T. C. (1997). 10 real SATs. College Entrance Examination Board.
Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29(5), 591–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599408248175
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
de Bruin, A. B. H., Thiede, K. W., Camp, G., & Redford, J. (2011). Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.005
Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., Kennedy, M. R. F., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). The self-monitoring approach for effective learning. Cognitive Technology, 10(1), 4–11.
Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: a brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.011
Efklides, A. (2014). How does metacognition contribute to the regulation of learning? An integrative approach. Psychological Topics, 23(1), 1–30.
Fukaya, T. (2013). Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy. Metacognition Learning, 8, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9093-0
Fulton, E. K. (2021). How well do you think you summarize? Metacomprehension accuracy in younger and older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Series B, 76(4), 732–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz142
Grabowski, J. (2010). Speaking, writing, and memory span in children: output modality affects cognitive performance. International Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 28–39.
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.93
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2019). The effects of comprehension-test expectancies on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(6), 1066–1092. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000634
Head, M. H., Readence, J. E., & Buss, R. R. (1989). An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 28(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388078909557982
Hidi, S. E., & Hildyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions in two discourse types. Discourse Processes, 6(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538309544557
Huxham, M., Campbell, F., & Westwood, J. (2012). Oral versus written assessments: A test of student performance and attitudes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.515012
Keleman, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211579
Kellogg, R. (2007). Are written and spoken recall of text equivalent? American Journal of Psychology, 120(3), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445412
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., Welsch, D. M., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90069-C
Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997
Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychology Review, 100(4), 609–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.609
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgements of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., & Bar, S. (2004). Predicting one’s own forgetting: The role of experience-based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.643
Kornell, N., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 609–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.609
Kühl, T., & Eitel, A. (2016). Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9154-x
Landauer, T. K. (1998). Learning and representing verbal meaning: the latent semantic analysis theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(5), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10836862
Landauer, T. K. (2007). LSA as a theory of meaning. In Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 3–34). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
Laurin-Barantke, L., Hoyer, J., Fehm, L., & Knappe, S. (2016). Oral but not written test anxiety is related to social anxiety. World Journal of Psychiatry, 6(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v6.i3.351
Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Education Technology Research Development, 58(6), 629–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6
León, J. A., & Escudero, I. (2015). Understanding causality in science discourse for middle and high school students. Summary task as a strategy for improving comprehension. In K. L. Santi & D. Reed (Eds.), Improving comprehension for middle and high school students (pp. 75–98). Springer International Publishing.
León, J. A., Olmos, R., Escudero, I., Cañas, J. J., & Salmerón, L. (2006). Assessing short summaries with human judgments procedure and latent semantic analysis in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 616–627. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193894
Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.10.4.663
Maki, R. H., Shields, M., Wheeler, A. E., & Zacchilli, T. L. (2005). Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Education Psychology, 97(4), 723–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.723
Maki, R. H., Willmon, C., & Pietan, A. (2009). Basis of metamemory judgments for text with multiple-choice, essay and recall tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(2), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1440
McPhee, I., Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2014). The power of the spoken word: can spoken-recall enhance eye-witness evidence? Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 21(4), 551–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.848001
Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01628.x
Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.174
Moore, D., Lin, L. M., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2005). A source of metacomprehension inaccuracy. Reading Psychology, 26(3), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590962578
Morris, C. C. (1990). Retrieval Processes Underlying Confidence in Judgements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.2.223
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
Pieger, E., Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2016). Metacognitive judgments and disfluency—Does disfluency lead to more accurate judgments, better control, and better performance? Learning and Instruction, 44, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.012
Putnam, A. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect? Memory & Cognition, 41(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0245-x
Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.1.69
Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209348
Reid, A. J., Morrison, G. R., & Bol, L. (2017). Knowing what you know: Improving metacognition and calibration accuracy in digital text. Education Technology Research Development, 65, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9454-5
Risko, E. F., & Dunn, T. L. (2015). Storing information in-the world: Metacognition and cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.05.014
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language process and structure of written discourse. Academic.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. Guilford.
Stevenson, L. M., & Carlson, R. A. (2020). Consistency, not speed: temporal regularity as a metacognitive cue. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84(3), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0973-z
Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66
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, and Cognition, 31(6), 1267–1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1267
Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959927
Undorf, M., Sollner, A., & Broder, A. (2018). Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 46(4), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0780-6
Vanderberg, R., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Which components of working memory are important in the writing process? Reading & Writing, 20, 721–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9046-6
Vieiro, P., & García-Madruga, J. A. (1997). An analysis of story comprehension through spoken and written summaries in school-age children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007932429184
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Jaeger, A. J., Jarosz, A. F., Cushen, P. J., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(4), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000096
Yue, C., Castel, L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is–and is not–a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory and Cognition, 41(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8
Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2008). Adult metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9073-8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This study was approved by Idaho State University’s Institutional Review Board.
Consent to participate
Each participant signed an informed consent form before any part of the procedure.
Consent for publication
Each author read and approved of final document before submission.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Madison, E.M., Fulton, E.K. The influence of summary modality on metacomprehension accuracy. Metacognition Learning 17, 117–138 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09277-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09277-5