Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 3–38 | Cite as

Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader

  • Linda Baker


This article provides an overview and synthesis of the current literature on metacognition and comprehension monitoring among adult readers. It is organized around three major research questions: (1) How do adults conceptualize their own comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities? (2) How effectively do adults evaluate and regulate their ongoing efforts to understand? (3) How successfully do adults assess the final products of their comprehension efforts? Cutting across these broad issues are questions concerning metacognitive differences as a function of reading ability, academic success, domain expertise, developmental level, and task variables. The research reveals that adults' conceptions of how they comprehend and how they monitor their comprehension are quite variable. In general, those who have more expertise, who are better readers, and who are more successful students seem to have greater awareness and control of their own cognitive activities while reading. The research also reveals that adults evaluate and regulate their ongoing efforts to understand, although there is considerable room for improvement in these skills. Finally, the research shows that adults are remarkably unsuccessful at assessing how well they have comprehended a text and whether or not they are ready to take a test on the material. The article closes with a discussion of recent intervention efforts aimed at enhancing the metacognitive skills of adult readers.

Key words

cognition reading reading comprehension 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Afflerbach, P. (1986). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' importance assignment process. In Niles, J. A., and Lalik, R. V. (eds.),Solving Problems in Literacy: Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, National Reading Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 30–40.Google Scholar
  2. Afflerbach, P., and Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research.J. Read. Behav. 16: 307–322.Google Scholar
  3. Alessi, S., Anderson, T. H., and Goetz, E. T. (1979). An investigation of lookbacks during studying.Discourse Processes 2: 197–212.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, P. A. (1986). College students' use of task-related information during studying.Read. Res. Instruct. 25: 91–101.Google Scholar
  5. Alexander, P. A., Hare, V. C., alnd Garner, R. (1984). The effects of time, access and question type on response accuracy and frequency of lookbacks in older, proficient readers.J. Read. Behav. 16: 119–130.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C., and Brrewer, W. F. (eds.),Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions.J. Read. Behav. 11: 365–374.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for evaluating comprehension: Effects of age, reading proficiency and type of standard.J. Exp. Child Psychol. 38: 289–311.Google Scholar
  9. Baker, L. (1985a). Differences in the standards used by college students to evaluate their comprehension of expository prose.Read. Res. Q. 20: 297–313.Google Scholar
  10. Baker, L. (1985b). How do we know when we don't understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In Forrest-Pressley, D. L., MacKinnon, G. E., and Waller, T. G., (eds.),Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance Academic Press, New York, pp. 155–206.Google Scholar
  11. Baker, L. (1986). Standards for evaluating comprehension: Are some more critical than others? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Baker, L. and Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring.Read. Res. Q. 17: 281–294.Google Scholar
  13. Baker, L., and Brown, A. L. (1984a). Metacognitive skills and reading. In Pearson, P. D. (ed.),Handbook of Research in Reading Longman, New York, pp. 353–395.Google Scholar
  14. Baker, L., and Brown, A. L. (1984b). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In Flood, J. (ed.),Understanding Reading Comprehension. International Reading Association, Newark, Delaware, pp. 21–40.Google Scholar
  15. Baker, L., and Wagner, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination.Mem. Cognit. 15: 279–284.Google Scholar
  16. Balajthy, E. (1986). The relationship of training in self-generated questioning with passage difficulty and immediate and delayed retention. In Nikes, J. A., and Lalik, R. V. (eds.),Solving Problems in Literacy: Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, National Reading Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 41–46.Google Scholar
  17. Bereiter, C., and Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies.Cognit. Instruct. 2: 131–156.Google Scholar
  18. Block, E. (1986). Comprehension strategies of nonproficient college readers. In Niles, J. A., and Lalik, R. V. (eds.),Solving Problems in Literacy: Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, National Reading Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 344–352.Google Scholar
  19. Blohm, P. J. (1987). Effect of lookup aids on mature readers' recall of technical text.Read. Res. Instruct. 26: 77–88.Google Scholar
  20. Bredart, S., and Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion.Acta Psychol. 67: 135–144.Google Scholar
  21. Brennan, S., Winograd, P. N., Bridge, C. A., and Hiebert, E. H. (1986). A comparison of observer reports and self-reports of study practices used by college students. In Niles, J. A., and Lalik, R. V. (eds.),Solving Problems in Literacy: Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, National Reading Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 353–358.Google Scholar
  22. Brigham, M. C., and Pressley, M. (1989). Cognitive monitoring and strategy choice in younger and older adults.Psychol. Aging (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., and Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In Flavell, J. H., and Markman, E. M. (eds.),Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. III: Cognitive Development Wiley, New York, pp. 77–166.Google Scholar
  24. Brozo, W. G., Stahl, N. A., and Gordon, B. (1985). Training effects of summarizing, item writing, and knowledge of information sources on reading test performance. In Niles, J. A., and Lalik, R. V. (eds.),Issues in Literacy: A Research Perspective, National Reading Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 48–54.Google Scholar
  25. Chall, J. S. (1983).Stages of Reading Development McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Cioffi, G. (1986). Relationships among comprehension strategies reported by college students.Read. Res. Instruct. 25: 220–231.Google Scholar
  27. Day, J. D. (1980).Training summarization skills: A comparison of teaching methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  28. Duell, O. K. (1978). Overt and covert use of objectives of different cognitive levels.Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 3: 239–245.Google Scholar
  29. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., and Rackliffe, G. (1986). How teachers' instructional talk influences students' understanding of lesson content.Element. School J. 87: 3–16.Google Scholar
  30. Epstein, W., Glenberg, A. M., and Bradley, M. M. (1984). Coactivation and comprehension: Contribution of text variables to the illusion of knowing.Mem. Cognit. 12:355–360.Google Scholar
  31. Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data.Psychol. Rev. 87: 215–251.Google Scholar
  32. Fischer, P. M., and Mandl, H. (1984). Learner, text variables, and the control of comprehension and recall. In Mandl, H., Stein, N. L., and Trabasso, T. (eds.),Learning and Comprehension of Text Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 213–254.Google Scholar
  33. Gambrell, L. B., and Heathington, B. S. (1981). Adult disabled readers' metacognitive awareness about reading tasks and strategies.J. Read. Behav. 13: 215–222.Google Scholar
  34. Garner, R. (1982). Verbal-report data on reading strategies.J. Read. Behav. 14: 159–167.Google Scholar
  35. Garner, R. (1987).Metacognition and Reading Comprehension Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  36. Garner, R., and Alexander, P. (1981). Use of passage cues in answering of questions: Investigation of the effects of an explicit external criterion on adults' studying behavior.J. Read. Behav. 13: 335–346.Google Scholar
  37. Garner, R., and Alexander, P. (1982). Strategic processing of text: An investigation of the effects on adults' question-answering performance.J. Educat. Res. 75: 144–148.Google Scholar
  38. Glenberg, A. M., and Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension.J. Exper. Psychol. LMC 11: 702–718.Google Scholar
  39. Glenberg, A. M., and Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension.Mem. Cognit. 15: 84–93.Google Scholar
  40. Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., and Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension.J. Exp. Psychol. G. 116: 119–136.Google Scholar
  41. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., and Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension.Mem. Cognit. 10: 597–602.Google Scholar
  42. Grabe, M., Antes, J., and Kristjanson, A. (1988). The impact of questions and instructions on comprehension monitoring. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  43. Grabe, M., Antes, J., Thorson, I., and Hahn, H. (1987). Eye fixation patterns during informed and uninformed comprehension monitoring.J. Read. Behav. 19: 123–140.Google Scholar
  44. Green, D. W., Mitchell, D. C., and Hammond, E. J. (1981). The scheduling of text integration processes in reading.Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 33A: 455–464.Google Scholar
  45. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., and Morgan, J. L. (eds.),Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7, Speech Acts Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Hare, V. C., and Pulliam, C. A. (1980). College students' metacognitive awareness of reading behavior. In Kamil, M. L., and Moe, A. J. (eds.),Perspectives on Reading Research and Instruction, National Reading Conference, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  47. Hosseini, J., and Ferrell, W. R. (1982). Measuring metacognition in reading by detectability of cloze accuracy.J. Read. Behav. 14: 263–274.Google Scholar
  48. Kaufman, N. J., Randlett, A. L., and Price, J. (1985). Awareness of the use of comprehension strategies in good and poor college readers.Read. Psychol. 6: 1–11.Google Scholar
  49. King, J. R., Biggs, S., and Lipsky, S. (1984). Students' self-questioning and summarizing as reading study strategies.J. Read. Behav. 16: 205–218.Google Scholar
  50. Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition.Human Dev. 26: 222–232.Google Scholar
  51. Kletzien, S. B. (1988). A comparison of achieving and nonachieving readers' use of comprehension strategies on different reading levels. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  52. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., and Fischoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence.J. Exp. Psychol. Human Learn. Mem. 6: 107–118.Google Scholar
  53. Lachman, J. L., Lachman, R., and Thronesbery, C. (1979). Metamemory through the adult life span.Dev. Psychol. 15: 543–551.Google Scholar
  54. Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O'Donnell, A. M., Hythecker, V. I., Lambiotte, J. G., and Rocklin, T. R. (1985). Effects of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer.Contemp. Educat. Psychol. 10: 342–348.Google Scholar
  55. Levin, J. R. (1986). Four cognitive principles of learning-strategy instruction.Educat. Psychol. 21: 3–17.Google Scholar
  56. Lovelace, E. A., and Marsh, G. R. (1985). Prediction and evaluation of memory performance by young and old adults.J. Gerontol. 40: 192–197.Google Scholar
  57. Lundeberg, M. A. (1987). Metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension: Studying understanding in legal case analysis.Read. Res. Q. 22: 407–432.Google Scholar
  58. Maki, R. H., and Berry, S. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 10: 663–679.Google Scholar
  59. Maki, R. H., and Swett, S. (1987). Metamemory for narrative text.Mem. Cognit. 15: 72–83.Google Scholar
  60. McCallum, R. S., McKinney, W., Gilmore, A. C., and Ledford, T. (1985). Adults' metacognitive ability: An examination of the age-deficient hypothesis.J. Appl. Gerontol. 4: 71–78.Google Scholar
  61. Meeks, J. W., Jacobson, S., and Duffy, T. M. (1984). Information processing in the military: An ethnographic investigation of high and low literacy enlisted personnel.Nat. Read. Conf. Year. 33: 85–89.Google Scholar
  62. Mikulecky, L., and Ehlinger, J. (1985). The influence of metacognitive aspects of literacy on job performance of electronics technicians.J. Read. Behav. 18: 43–62.Google Scholar
  63. Mikulecky, L., and Winchester, D. (1983). Job literacy and job performance among nurses at varying employment levels.Adult Educat. Q. 34: 1–15.Google Scholar
  64. Murphy, M. D., Sanders, R. E., Gabriesheski, A. S., and Schmitt, F. A. (1981). Metamemory in the aged.J. Gerontol. 36: 185–193.Google Scholar
  65. Nist, S. L., and Kirby, K. (1986). Teaching comprehension and study strategies through modeling and thinking aloud.Read. Res. Instruct. 25: 254–264.Google Scholar
  66. Nist, S. L., Simpson, M. L., and Hogrebe, M. C. (1985). The relationship between the use of study strategies and test performance.J. Read. Behav. 17: 15–28.Google Scholar
  67. Olson, G. M., Mack, R. L., and Duffy, S. A. (1981). Cognitive aspects of genre.Poetics 10: 283–315.Google Scholar
  68. Otero, J. C., and Campanario, J. M. (1988). Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alcala, Madrid.Google Scholar
  69. Pace, A. J., Sherk, J. K., Peck, A. R., and Baldwin, D. (1985). In Niles, J. A. and Lalik, R. V. (eds.),Issues in Literacy: A Research Perspective. Thirty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, National Reading Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 233–237.Google Scholar
  70. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., and Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension.J. Educat. Psychol. 76: 1239–1252.Google Scholar
  71. Perlmutter, M. (1978). What is memory aging the aging of?Dev. Psychol. 14: 330–345.Google Scholar
  72. Perry, W. G. (1970).Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  73. Phifer, S. J., and Glover, J. A. (1982). Don't take students' word for what they do while reading.Bul. Psychon. Soci. 19: 194–196.Google Scholar
  74. Pratt, M. W., Luszcz, M. A., Mackenzie-Keating, S., and Manning, A. (1982). Thinking about stories: The story schema in metacognition.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 21: 493–505.Google Scholar
  75. Pressley, M., Snyder, B. L., Levin, J. R., Murray, H. G., and Ghatala, E. S. (1987). Perceived readiness for examination performance (PREP) produced by initial reading of text and text containing adjunct questions.Read. Res. Q. 22: 219–236.Google Scholar
  76. Randall, A., Fairbanks, M. M., and Kennedy, M. L. (1986). Using think-aloud protocols diagnostically with college readers.Read. Res. Instruct. 25: 240–253.Google Scholar
  77. Raphael, T. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering comprehension questions.J. Read. 28: 303–311.Google Scholar
  78. Robinson, E. J., and Whitfield, M. J. (1985). Improving the efficiency of patients' comprehension monitoring: A way of increasing patients' participation in general practice consultations.Soc. Sci. Med. 21: 915–919.Google Scholar
  79. Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistomological standards.J. Educat. Psychol. 76: 248–258.Google Scholar
  80. Schommer, M., and Surber, J. R. (1986). Comprehension monitoring failure in skilled adult readers.J. Educat. Psychol. 78: 353–357.Google Scholar
  81. Shaughnessy, J. J. (1979). Confidence-judgment accuracy as a predictor of test performance.J. Res. Personal. 13: 505–514.Google Scholar
  82. Shenkman, H. (1986). A theoretical model for a total approach to independent learning from text.Read. Psychol. 7: 111–119.Google Scholar
  83. Shenkman, H., and Cukras, G. (1986). Effects of a metacognitive study training program on underprepared college students. In Nikes, J. A., and Lalik, R. V. (eds.),Solving Problems in Literacy: Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, National Reading Conference. Rochester, New York, pp. 222–226.Google Scholar
  84. Simpson, M. L. (1984). The status of study strategy instruction: Implications for classroom teachers.J. Read. 28: 136–142.Google Scholar
  85. Smith, S. L. (1982). Learning strategies of mature college learners.J. Read. 26: 5–12.Google Scholar
  86. Smith, S. P. (1985). Comprehension and comprehension monitoring by experienced readers.J. Read. 28: 292–300.Google Scholar
  87. Spring, C. (1985). Comprehension and study strategies reported by university freshmen who are good and poor readers.Instruct. Sci. 14: 157–167.Google Scholar
  88. Tikhomirov, O. K., and Klochko, V. E. (1981). The detection of a contradiction as the initial stage of problem formation. In Wertsch, J. (ed.),The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology Sharpe, Armonk, New York, pp. 341–382.Google Scholar
  89. Waern, Y., and Askwall, S. (1981). On some sources of metacomprehension.Scand. J. Psychol. 22: 17–25.Google Scholar
  90. Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., and Alexander, P. A. (eds.). (1988).Learning and Study Strategies Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  91. Yussen, S. R., Smith, M. C., and Huang, T. (1986). Listening versus reading in monitoring comprehension. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  92. Zabrucky, K., Moore, D., and Schultz, N. R. (1987). Evaluation of comprehension in young and old adults.Dev. Psychol. 23: 39–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Baker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Maryland Baltimore CountyBaltimore

Personalised recommendations