Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of judgment frames, cues, and test criteria on the accuracy of metacomprehension monitoring. The design was a 2 (rating comprehension vs. predicting performance) × 2 (memory cues vs. comprehension cues) × 2 (detailed questions test vs. inferential questions test) mixed design with judgment frames and cues as the between-subjects factors and test criteria as the within-subjects factor. The results showed that the influence of judgment frames on accuracy was moderated by the test criteria. The readers’ monitoring was more accurate in rating comprehension than predicting performance when inferential questions were used as the criteria; when detailed questions were used as the criteria, this situation was reversed. The interaction effect of judgment cues and criteria on metacomprehension monitoring accuracy was significant. When readers predicted their performances on a test, those who received memory cues were more accurate than those who received comprehension cues. However, when readers rated their comprehension, those who received comprehension cues were more accurate than those who received memory cues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackerman, R., & Beller, Y. (2017). Shared and distinct cue utilization for metacognitive judgements during reasoning and memorisation. Thinking & Reasoning, 1–33
Alvermann, D. E., Unrau, N. J., & Ruddell, R. B. (2013). Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Ariel, R., Hines, J. C., & Hertzog, C. (2014). Test framing generates a stability bias for predictions of learning by causing people to discount their learning beliefs. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 181–198
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
Chen, Q. (2007). Accuracy of metacomprehension monitoring and delayed-keyword effect. Advances in Psychological Science, 15(2), 295–300
Chen, Q., & Chang, R. (2009). What factors constrain the accuracy of metacomprehension monitoring? Advances in Psychological Science, 17(4), 706–713
Chen, Q., & Li, L. (2008). Rating comprehension and predicting performance: Clarifying two forms of metacomprehension monitoring. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40(9), 961–968
Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–232
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2008). Metacognition. Sage Publications
Dunlosky, J., Baker, J., Rawson, K. A., & Hertzog, C. (2006). Does aging influence people’s metacomprehension? Effects of processing ease on judgments of text learning. Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 390–400
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 551–565
England, B. D., Ortegren, F. R., & Serra, M. J. (2017). Framing affects scale usage for judgments of learning, not confidence in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(12), 1898–1908
Finn, B. (2008). Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control. Memory & Cognition, 36(4), 813–821
Follmer, D. J., & Tise, J. (2021). Across-task relations among monitoring judgments: Differential effects of item feedback on monitoring bias during reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 88, 102007
Fukaya, T. (2013). Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 8, 1–18
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
Hartwig, M. K., & Dunlosky, J. (2017). Category learning judgments in the classroom: Can students judge how well they know course topics? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 80–90
Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning and Instruction, 34, 58–73
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370
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
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
Massey, D. D. (2014). Self-Regulated Comprehension. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 389–399). Routledge
McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1989). Material-appropriate processing: A contextualist approach to reading and studying strategies. Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 113–145
Mulligan, N. W., & Lozito, J. P. (2006). An asymmetry between memory encoding and retrieval: Revelation, generation, and transfer-appropriate processing. Psychological Science, 17(1), 7–11
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
Pilegard, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Within-subject and between-subject conceptions of metacomprehension accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 54–61
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Prinz, A., Golke, S., & Wittwer, J. (2019). Refutation texts compensate for detrimental effects of misconceptions on comprehension and metacomprehension accuracy and support transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 957–981
Prinz, A., Golke, S., & Wittwer, J. (2020). To what extent do situation-model-approach interventions improve relative metacomprehension accuracy? Meta-analytic insights. Educational Psychology Review, 1–33
Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22, 262–270
Schleinschok, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control during learning from text? Learning and Instruction, 51, 10–25
Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18(7), 698–711
Shiu, L., & Chen, Q. (2013). Self and external monitoring of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 78–88
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
Thiede, K. W., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2017). Self-regulated learning in reading. In D. H. Schunk, & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (3rd ed., pp. 124–137). New York, NY: Routledge Press
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
Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 264–273
Thomas, A. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007a). Metacomprehension for educationally relevant materials: Dramatic effects of encoding-retrieval interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 212–218
Thomas, A. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007b). The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 668–678
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 408–428
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
Funding
This research was funded by the 13th Five-Year Plan Research Project of Philosophy and Social Science in Guangdong, China (GD17XXL02).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
The present study has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of South China Normal University. The study was conducted following the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. All participants provided their written informed consent before the experiment. The data were collected and analyzed anonymously.
Conflict of Interest
The author states that there is no conflict 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
Chen, Q. Metacomprehension Monitoring Accuracy: Effects of Judgment Frames, Cues and Criteria. J Psycholinguist Res 51, 485–500 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09837-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09837-z