Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 257–277 | Cite as

The concreteness of titles affects metacognition and study motivation

  • Marie LippmannEmail author
  • Neil H. Schwartz
  • Neil G. Jacobson
  • Susanne Narciss
Article

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the extent to which the concreteness of titles affects metacognitive text expectations, study motivation, and comprehension test performance. Sixty-three American and 61 German students were presented with three titles (either concrete or abstract), based upon which the students estimated their expected ease-of-comprehension, and the expected interestingness, of three expository texts. Students also reported how motivated they were to study the texts. The students then studied the texts and completed comprehension tests. The results revealed that students expected texts with concrete (as opposed to abstract) titles to be easier to comprehend and more interesting, and were more motivated to study those texts. Structural Equation Modelling revealed that the effects of titles on reported study motivation were mediated by expected interestingness. In addition to that, expected interestingness and reported study motivation were partially mediated by expected ease-of-comprehension. Comprehension test performance was not affected. The results provide robust evidence for positive motivational effects of concrete titles. More specifically, the results indicate that concrete titles—which are specific and easy to imagine—promote students’ motivation to study expository texts by encouraging the students to expect that they will find the texts interesting, and that they will be able to understand the texts.

Keywords

Titles Concreteness Metacognition Motivation Text comprehension 

References

  1. Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., Goetz, E. T., Pichert, J. W., & Halff, H. M. (1977). Two faces of the conceptual peg hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3(2), 142–149.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.3.2.142.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, D. J., & Brooks, P. H. (1976). Influence of contextual organizing material on childrens’ listening comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 711–716.Google Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885871.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, A. E., Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Mazzoni, G., & Narens, L. (1999). An integrative system of metamemory components involved in retrieval. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 287–313). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 610–632.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8.Google Scholar
  7. Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83.Google Scholar
  8. Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–2796.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055.Google Scholar
  9. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Bollen, K. A., & Pearl, J. (2012). Handbook of causal analysis for social research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Bouffard, T., & Narciss, S. (2011). Benefits and risks of positive biases in self-evaluation of academic competence: Introduction. International Journal of Educational Research., 50, 205–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.08.001.Google Scholar
  13. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9.Google Scholar
  14. Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 329–345.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.329.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Self-esteem and emotion: Some thoughts about feelings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 575–584.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201275006.Google Scholar
  16. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–282.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(97)80002-9.Google Scholar
  17. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253.Google Scholar
  18. Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 211–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2.Google Scholar
  19. Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring literacy on the internet: Reading comprehension on the internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464.Google Scholar
  20. Corkill, A. J., Bruning, R. H., & Glover, J. A. (1988). Advance organizers: Concrete versus abstract. The Journal of Educational Research, 82(2), 76–81.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885871.Google Scholar
  21. Dai, D. Y., & Wang, X. (2007). The role of need for cognition and reader beliefs in text comprehension and interest development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 332–347.Google Scholar
  22. Dooling, D. J, & Mullet, R. L. (1973). Locus of thematic effects in retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97(3), 404–406.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.Google Scholar
  25. Durrell, M. (2006). Germanic Languages. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 53–55). Amsterdam: Elsevier (North Holland Publishing Co.).  https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02189-1.Google Scholar
  26. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1992). The development of achievement-task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.Google Scholar
  27. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development in Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 1017–1096). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Filippatou, D. (1995). Effects of pictures and titles on reading accuracy and reading comprehension of primary school children, including children with specific developmental dyslexia (SpDD). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  29. Filippatou, D., & Pumfrey, P. D. (1995). Pictures, titles, reading accuracy and reading comprehension: A research review (1973–95). Educational Research, 38(3), 259–291.Google Scholar
  30. Fulmer, S. M., D’Mello, S. K., Strain, A., & Graesser, A. C. (2015). Interest-based text preference moderates the effect of text difficulty on engagement and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 98–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.005.Google Scholar
  31. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(3), 385–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0.Google Scholar
  32. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 256–281.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256.Google Scholar
  33. Glanzer, M., & Bowles, N. (1976). Analysis of the word-frequency effect in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2(1), 21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.1.21.Google Scholar
  34. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10(6), 597–602.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202442.Google Scholar
  35. Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564.Google Scholar
  37. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430303953.Google Scholar
  38. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300–312.Google Scholar
  40. Harter, S. (1985). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: Toward a comprehensive model of self-worth. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 55–121). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students’ recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 465–483.  https://doi.org/10.2307/747644.Google Scholar
  42. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179.Google Scholar
  43. Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Yun Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Hoffman, P. (2016). The meaning of ‘life’ and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10(2), 317–343.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12065.Google Scholar
  45. Kieras, D. E. (1980). Initial mention as a signal to thematic content in technical passages. Memory & Cognition, 8(4), 345–353.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198274.Google Scholar
  46. Kieras, D. E. (1981). Topicalization effects in cued recall of technical prose. Memory & Cognition, 9(6), 541–549.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202348.Google Scholar
  47. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270–1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  49. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  50. König, E., & van der Auwera, J. (Eds.). (1994). The Germanic languages. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349.Google Scholar
  52. Koriat, A. (2000). The feeling of knowing: Some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2), 149–171.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0433.Google Scholar
  53. Kozminsky, E. (1977). Altering comprehension: The effect of biasing titles on text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 5(4), 482–490.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197390.Google Scholar
  54. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(1), 23–40.Google Scholar
  55. Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 47–63.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037142.Google Scholar
  56. Levin, J. R. (1989). A transfer-appropriate processing perspective of pictures in prose. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Lin, L.-M., Moore, D. W., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2000). Metacomprehension knowledge and comprehension of expository and narrative texts among younger and older adults. Educational Gerontology, 26(8), 737–749.Google Scholar
  58. Lin, L. M., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(4), 345–391.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0972.Google Scholar
  59. Long, S. A., Winograd, P. N., & Bridge, C. A. (1989). The effects of reader and text characteristics on imagery reported during and after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(3), 353–372.  https://doi.org/10.2307/747774.Google Scholar
  60. Lorch, R. F., Jr. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 209–234.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320135.Google Scholar
  61. Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of headings on text recall and summarization. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(3), 261–278.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0022.Google Scholar
  62. Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 280–296.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280.Google Scholar
  63. 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.Google Scholar
  64. Marchant, H. G., III, Royer, J. M., & Greene, B. A. (1988). Superior reliability and validity for a new form of the Sentence Verification Technique for measuring comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(3), 827–834.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488483032.Google Scholar
  65. Masson, M. E., & Rotello, C. M. (2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman-Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: Implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 509.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014876.Google Scholar
  66. Mazzoni, G., & Cornoldi, C. (1993). Strategies in study time allocation: Why is study time sometimes not effective? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(1), 47–60.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.1.47.Google Scholar
  67. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1.Google Scholar
  68. Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2010). Accuracy of confidence judgments: Stability and generality in the learning process and predictive validity for learning outcome. Memory & Cognition, 38(4), 441–451.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.4.441.Google Scholar
  69. Meyer, B. J. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier (North-Holland Publishing Co.).Google Scholar
  70. Narciss, S., Koerndle, H., & Dresel, M. (2011). Self-evaluation accuracy and satisfaction with performance: Are there affective costs or benefits of positive self-evaluation bias? International Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 230–240.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.08.004.Google Scholar
  71. Narciss, S., Koerndle, H., & Proske, A. (2013). Challenges of investigating metacognitive tool use and effects in (rich) web-based learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 243–260). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_17.Google Scholar
  72. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102–116.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102.Google Scholar
  73. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5.Google Scholar
  74. Nietfeld, J. L., Enders, C. K., & Schraw, G. (2006). A Monte Carlo comparison of measures of relative and absolute monitoring accuracy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(2), 258–271.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404273945.Google Scholar
  75. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003.Google Scholar
  76. Ozuru, Y., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). The effect of metacomprehension judgment task on comprehension monitoring and metacognitive accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 7(2), 113–131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9087-y.Google Scholar
  77. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1), 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327.Google Scholar
  79. Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 522.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030307.Google Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 754–775.Google Scholar
  82. Ritchey, K., Schuster, J., & Allen, J. (2008). How the relationship between text and headings influences readers’ memory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 859–874.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.11.001.Google Scholar
  83. Royer, J. M., & Cable, G. W. (1976). Illustrations, analogies, and facilitative transfer in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 205.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.68.2.205.Google Scholar
  84. Sadoski, M. (2001). Resolving the effects of concreteness on interest, comprehension, and learning important ideas from text. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 263–281.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016675822931.Google Scholar
  85. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 291.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.291.Google Scholar
  86. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.85.Google Scholar
  87. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1329–1362). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  88. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2013). Imagery and text—A dual-coding theory of reading and writing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Schallert, D. L. (1976). Improving memory for prose: The relationship between depth of processing and context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(6), 621–632.Google Scholar
  90. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8.Google Scholar
  92. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45.Google Scholar
  93. Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Literacy Research, 27(1), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969509547866.Google Scholar
  94. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455.Google Scholar
  95. Schüler, A., Arndt, J., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Processing multimedia material: Does integration of text and pictures result in a single or two interconnected mental representations? Learning and Instruction, 35, 62–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.005.Google Scholar
  96. Schwartz, M. N. K., & Flammer, A. (1981). Text structure and title-effects on comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 61–66.Google Scholar
  97. Shepherd, S. (1990). Some effects of pictures and titles on 78 year olds’ recall and comprehension of aurally presented stories. Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  98. Shimada, H. (2016). Effects of components of educational materials on motivation for reading. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(3), 296–306.  https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep.64.296.Google Scholar
  99. Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(1), 57–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00548.x.Google Scholar
  100. Stone, N. J. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 437–475.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009084430926.Google Scholar
  101. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  102. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, 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.Google Scholar
  103. Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 264–273.  https://doi.org/10.1348/135910710X510494.Google Scholar
  104. Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., & Hayes, M. T. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 93–114.  https://doi.org/10.2307/747885.Google Scholar
  105. Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N., & Shinkavera, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31(10), 1459–1468.Google Scholar
  106. Weaver, C. A. (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(2), 214–222.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.2.214.Google Scholar
  107. 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.Google Scholar
  108. 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. 27–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  109. Yuill, N., & Joscelyn, T. (1988). Effect of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 152–158.Google Scholar
  110. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State University ChicoChicoUSA
  2. 2.Rossier School of EducationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Psychology of Learning and InstructionTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations