Résumé
L’autoévaluation de la compréhension d’un texte oriente le contrôle des activités cognitives. Un bilan des recherches dans ce domaine montre que les étudiants sont de mauvais estimateurs de leur compréhension; leur autoévaluation ne correspond pas à leur performance effective. Cela conduit à analyser l’apport des recherches qui ont contribué à l’étude des causes de cette absence de correspondance entre autoévaluation et réalité de la compréhension. On a ensuite souligné les implications résultant des recherches précédentes et d’autres recherches en ce qui concerne l’aide à une autoévaluation adéquate de la compréhension. Ces recherches permettent de souligner, notamment, l’importance de facteurs mobilisateurs de l’investissement métacognitif et cognitif.
Abstract
Self-evaluation of own comprehension affects cognitive monitoring. A review of studies in this area shows that students are often unable to accurately evaluate their comprehension of texts. Confidence in their comprehension does not predict their performance. These data lead to emphasize the contribution of research that studied the question of why readers are often unaware to their own comprehension failures. This paper will then point out the implications resulting from the precedent studies and other studies to help readers to attain a valid autoevaluation of own comprehension. These studies indicate in particular the important function of incentive factors in metacognitive and cognitive investment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Références
Baker, L. (1985). How do we know we don’t understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension, In Forrest-Presley, D. L. Mackinnon, G. E., Waller, T. G. (Ed.),Metacognition cognition and human performance, (pp. 155–206) Vol. 1, New-York: Academic Press.
Baker, L., Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading In Pearson, P. D. (Ed.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New-York: Longman.
Chesky, J., Hiebert, E. H. (1987). The effect of prior knowledge and audience on high school students writing.Journal of Educational Research, 80, 304–313.
Ehrlich, M. F. (1988). Aspects métacognitifs de la communication de textes, quels sont les indices à partir desquels les sujets autoévaluent leur compréhension?Communication à la journée d’étude sur le contrôle et l’aide au contrôle de la résolution de tâches complexes, organisée par le Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de l’Education de l’Enfant, Université Paris V.
Ehrlich, M. F., & Cahour, B. (1988). Approche métacognitive de la compréhension de texte: les marques de cohésion servent-elles de support à l’autoévaluation de la compréhension?Communication au Colloque de la Société française de Psychologie, Dijon.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data,Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.
Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension,Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning memory and cognition, 11, 702–718.
Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1982). Inexpert calibration of comprehension,Memory and cognition, 15, 84–93.
Glenberg, A. M., Sanoki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension,Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 116, 119–136.
Langer, E. J. &, Imbert, G. (1979). When practice makes imperfect: debilitating effects of overlearning,Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 37, 2014–2024. PA
Lefebvre-Pinard, M. (1983). Understanding and autocontrol of cognitive functions: implications for the relations between cognition and behavior,International Journal of Behavioral Development, 6, 15–35.
Lefebvre-Pinard, M., Bouffard-Bouchard, T. & Decary, D. (1983). Reading to understand and remember the role of the metacognition awareness about strategies,communication au colloque «Biennial Meeting of the society for research in child development», Detroit.
Lefebvre-Pinard, M. &, Pinard, A. (1985). Taking charge of one’s cognitive activity: a moderator of competence. In E. D. Neimark, R. De Lisi, & J. R. Newman (Eds),Moderators of competence (pp. 191–211), Hillsdale (N.J.): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Le Ny, J. F. &, Denhière, G. (1974). Le rôle du sentiment de savoir dans un apprentissage de connaissances,Le Travail Humain, 37, 23–34.
Le Ny, J. F., Denhière, G. & Le Taillantere, D. (1973). Study time of sentences as a function of their specificity and of semantic exploration.Acta Psychologica, 37, 43–53.
Maki, R. H., &, Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 10, 663–679.
Miyake, N. &, Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question one must known enough to know what is not known,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 357–364.
Norman, D. A. (1978). Notes toward a theory a complex learning, In A. M. Lesgold, J. W. Pellegrino & S. D. Fokkema (Eds.),Cognitive Psychology and Instruction (pp. 39–48). New York: Plenum Press.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities (1970).Review of Educational Research, 40, 325–336.
Vezin, J. F. (1980). Guiding study activity of prose material and overview formulation.International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 20, 75–90.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vezin, JF. Auto-évaluation de la Compréhension de Textes. Eur J Psychol Educ 4, 505 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172713
Revised:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172713