Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Metacognitive monitoring skills of reading comprehension and writing between proficient and poor readers

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reading comprehension and writing are essential skills for success in modern societies. Additionally, reading and writing have been described as highly reflective activities that necessitate metacognitive monitoring and control. However, reading comprehension and writing are skills moderated by many factors, proficiency among them. Thus, in the present study we examined the influence of reading comprehension proficiency (proficient, poor) on elementary school students’ (N = 120) metacognitive monitoring accuracy in reading and writing tasks. Further, we investigated the predictive patterns of linguistic indices between proficient and poor readers on their metacognitive monitoring accuracy in a writing task. Findings revealed that proficient readers exhibited significantly better monitoring accuracy in both reading and writing tasks, and that unique predictive patterns of linguistic indices on writing skill monitoring accuracy emerged between proficient and poor readers. We discuss the implications of these findings for research, theory, and practice and propose recommendations for future research.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data associated with this research are available to anyone upon reasonable request.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10862967909547342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for evaluation comprehension: Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type of standard. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(84)90127-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. (1996). Social influence on metacognitive development in reading. In C. Cornoldi & J Oakhill, (Ed.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp.331–351). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

  • Beal, C. R., Garrod, A. C., & Bonitatibus, G. J. (1990). Fostering children’s revision skills through training in comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J. M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

  • Berninger, V. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections to language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics of Language Disorders, 20, 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200020040-00007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970109600653

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.73.4.269-290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buz, E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. H., Gualberto, P. J., Tameta, C. L., & Salle, D. L. (2009). The development of metacognitive reading awareness inventory. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 43–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & Dascalu, M. (2019). The tool for the automatic analysis of Cohesion 2.0: Integrating semantic similarity and text overlap. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1142-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Griffin, T., Thiede, K., & Wiley, J. (2005). Understanding the delayed keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 31, 1267–1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1267

    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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2002). Metacomprehension of science text: Investigating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 255–279). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

  • Ehrlich, M. F. (1996). Metacognitive monitoring in the processing of anaphoric devices in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders. In C. Cornoldi, & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processesand remediation (pp. 221–249). Erlbaum

  • Ehrlich, M. F., Remond, M., & Tardieu, H. (1999). Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring. Reading and Writing, 11, 29–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007996502372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26(6), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003202412203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura, & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural/process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 34–78). Sijthoff & Noorddhoff

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricke, M., Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2016). Phonetic variation in bilingual speech: A lens for studying the production-comprehension link. Journal of memory and language, 89, 110–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givón, T. (Eds.). (1995). Coherence in spontaneous text (31 vol.). John Benjamins Publishing

  • Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (2014). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. Routledge

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., et al. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 36, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., & Holzapfel, J. (2018). Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta-Analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2018). Reading for Writing: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Reading Interventions on Writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, A. P., & Price, A. F. (2017). Calibration between undergraduate students’ prediction of and actual performance: The role of gender and performance attributions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1180278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, & Schraw, G. (2015). Effects of strategy training and incentives on students’ performance, confidence, and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.907230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez de Blume, A. P. (2017). The effects of strategy training and an extrinsic incentive on fourth- and fifth-grade students’ performance, confidence, and calibration accuracy. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1314652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez de Blume, A. P. (2020). Efecto de la instrucción de estrategias en la precisión del monitoreo metacognitivo de los alumnos universitarios estadounidenses. Tesis Psicológica, 15(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.37511/10.37511/tesis.v15n2a9

  • Gutierrez, A. P., Schraw, G., Kuch, F., & Richmond, A. S. (2016). A two-process model of metacognitive monitoring: Evidence for general accuracy and error factors. Learning and Instruction, 44, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez de Blume, A. P., Soto, C., Ramírez Carmona, C., Rodriguez, F., & Castillo, P., P (2021). Reading competence and its impact on writing: an approach towards mental representation in literacy tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., Valdés Kroff, J. R., & Dussias, P. E. (2016). Examining the relationship between comprehension and production processes in code-switched language. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 138–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Keener, M. C. (2008). Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. In J. Dunlosky, & R. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of Memory and Metacognition (pp. 429–455). Erlbaum

  • Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). ). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Routledge

  • Hadwin, A. F., & Webster, E. A. (2013). Calibration in goal setting: Examining the nature of judgments of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 24, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writing process. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 277–309). Academic Press

  • Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach. (pp. 3–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/BF 456 W8 C676 1980

  • Honeycutt, R. L. (2002). Good reader/poor writer: An investigation of the strategies, understanding, and meaning that good readers who are poor writers ascribe to writing narrative text on-demand. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/5094

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and writing, 2(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, Y., & MacDonald, M. C. (2016). Production predicts comprehension: Animacy effects in Mandarin relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacovina, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2017). Intelligent tutoring systems for literacy: Existing technologies and continuing challenges. In R. Atkinson (Ed.), Intelligent tutoring systems: Structure, applications, and challenges. Nova Science Publishers Inc

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 161–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0703_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press

  • Kittredge, A. K., & Dell, G. S. (2016). Learning to speak by listening: Transfer of phonotactics from perception to production. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (2004). Seeing is understanding: Improving coherence in students’ writing. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(7), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lika, M. (2017). Teaching reading comprehension strategies. Academic Journal of Business Administration Law and Social Sciences, 3(1), 196–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for high and low ability readers’ reading comprehension performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(1), 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.10.4.663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., Shields, M., Wheeler, A. E., & Zacchilli, T. L. (2005). Individual Differences in Absolute and Relative Metacomprehension Accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 723–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Psychology Press

  • Meyer, A. S., Huettig, F., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2016). Same, different, or closely related: What is the relationship between language production and comprehension? Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2003). Trends in academic progress. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

  • Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2017). PISA 2015 Results

  • Otero, J. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties while understanding science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 281–308). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

  • Palma, D., & Soto, C. (2022). Open-Source Collaboration to Assess the Text Complexity, Helping to Read and Write in Spanish-Speaking Schools. Human Systems Engineering and Design (IHSED 2021).https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1001171

  • Palma, D., Soto, C., Veliz, M., Karelovic, B., & Riffo, B. (2021). TRUNAJOD: A text complexity library to enhance natural language processing. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60), 3153. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palma, D., Soto, C., Veliz, M., Riffo, B., & Gutiérrez, A. (2019). A Data-Driven Methodology to Assess Text Complexity Based on Syntactic and Semantic Measurements. International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies, 509–515. Springer, Cham

  • Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hume (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford, England: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and selfregulated learning. In G. Schraw, & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement

    Google Scholar 

  • Riffo, B., Véliz, M., Castro, G., Reyes, F., Figueroa, B., Salazar, O., & Herrera, M. O. (2013). LECTUM. Prueba de comprensión lectora. Conicyt. Proyecto Fondef D08i1179

  • Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Kuch, F., Gutierrez, A. P., & Richmond, A. S. (2014). Exploring a Three-Level Model of Calibration Accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1192–1202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. S., Aziz, W., & Specia, L. (2016). Cohere: A toolkit for local coherence. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), 4111–4114

  • Soto, C., Gutiérrez de Blume, A. P., Carrasco Bernal, M. A., & Contreras Castro, M. A. (2020). The role of meta-cognitive cues on the comprehension of proficient and poor readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12303

  • Soto, C., Gutiérrez de Blume, A. P. G., Castro, M. A. C., & Bernal, M. C. (2019). Development and Validation of a Tool to Detect and Repair Text Inconsistencies. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 17(48), 437–464. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v17i48.2352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, C., Gutiérrez de Blume, A. P., Jacovina, M., McNamara, D., Benson, N., Riffo, B., & Kruk, R. (2019). Reading comprehension and metacognition: The importance of inferential skills. Cogent Education, 6(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1565067

  • Soto, C., Gutierrez de Blume, A. P., Rodríguez, M. F., Asún, R., Figueroa, M., & Serrano, M. (2019). Impact of bridging strategy and feeling of knowing judgments on reading comprehension using COMPRENDE: An educational technology. TechTrends, 63(5), 570–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00383-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, C., Rodríguez, M. F., & de Blume, A. P. G. (2018). Exploring the meta-comprehension abilities of students with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 233–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel, D. L., & Fitzgerald, J. (1990). Textual cohesion and coherence in children’s writing revisited.Research in the Teaching of English,48–66. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171445

  • Stone, N. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 437–475. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009084430926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struthers, L., Lapadat, J. C., & MacMillan, P. D. (2013). Assessing cohesion in children’s writing: Development of a checklist. Assessing Writing, 18(3), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. C. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. S. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The educational psychology series. Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 85–106). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group

  • UNESCO (2015). Informe nacional de resultados TERCE. Extraído de http://archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/TERCE_informefinal.pdf

  • Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding whole language: From principles to practice. Heinemann

  • Weaver, C. A., & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westby, C. (2004). A language perspective on executive on functioning, metacognition, and self-regulation. In A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 398–427). Guilford Publication

  • Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 408–428. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.132.4.408-428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/356693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. (1999). Metacognition in writing. In R. Gallimore, L. P. Bernheimer, D. L. McMillan, D. L. Speece, & S. R. Vaughn (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on children with high-incidence disabilities (pp. 183–198). Routledge

  • Yang, Y. F. (2002). Reassessing readers’ comprehension monitoring.Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1). http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2002/yang/yang.html

  • Yang, W., & Sun, Y. (2012). The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamuner, T. S., Morin-Lessard, E., Strahm, S., & Page, M. P. A. (2016). Spoken word recognition of novel words, either produced or only heard during learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by a FONDEF ID grant, number 20I10290, titled “Literador: Un tutor inteligente que potencia las competencias en lectura y escritura” [Literador: An intelligent tutor that improves reading and writing skills], from ANID, Chile.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Spanish, Psycholinguistics Area, Universidad de Concepción, Victor Lamas 1290, Zip Code 4070386, Concepción, Chile

    Christian Soto, Verónica Rebolledo, Fernanda Rodríguez, Diego Palma & Fernando Gutiérrez

  2. Department of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading, Georgia Southern University, P.O. Box 8144, 30460-8144, Statesboro, GA, USA

    Antonio P. Gutierrez de Blume

Authors
  1. Christian Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio P. Gutierrez de Blume
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Verónica Rebolledo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fernanda Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Diego Palma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fernando Gutiérrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio P. Gutierrez de Blume.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests:

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to report.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soto, C., Gutierrez de Blume, A.P., Rebolledo, V. et al. Metacognitive monitoring skills of reading comprehension and writing between proficient and poor readers. Metacognition Learning 18, 113–134 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09317-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09317-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation