Tracking On-Line Metacognition: Monitoring and Regulating Comprehension in Reading

  • Riitta Kinnunen
  • Marja Vauras


This chapter focuses on on-line metacognitive processes, in particular, comprehension monitoring in reading. Interesting prospects of technology-supported on-line methods for metacognitive studies on comprehension monitoring are outlined on the basis of current empirical evidence. First, the on-line methods to study comprehension monitoring are described and discussed, and our studies of elementary (Grade 1–6) school students’ monitoring and regulating comprehension feature the application of two of the methods, namely traced silent reading and eyetracking. Second, these studies give evidence on young students’ comprehension monitoring and developmental trends as a function of grade, decoding skills, listening and reading comprehension skills and intervention. As an example, results from a recent study linking students’ comprehension monitoring, mood and metacognitive experiences are presented in more detail. The future promise and prospects of technology-supported on-line comprehension monitoring methods for metacognition research and of assessing affects associated with comprehension monitoring processes are discussed. It is argued that the modern technology allowing synchronized data collection of affective reactions and reading comprehension behavior offer important new opportunities to enhance current theories and empirical knowledge, particularly, of linkages between emotional and metacognitive processes.


Reading Comprehension Poor Reader Metacognitive Knowledge Short Text Comprehension Skill 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The research was supported by Grant 114048 from the Council of Cultural and Social Science Research, The Academy of Finland, to the first author.


  1. Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for evaluating comprehension: Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type of standard. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don’t understand? Standards for evaluating comprehension. In D. Forrest-Pressley, G. McKinnon, & T. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and human performance (pp. 155–205). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. Collins Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction. Research-based best practices (pp. 77–95). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, L., & Anderson, R. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. J. Pearson, M. Kamil, M. R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. M. (1995). Children talk about the mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453–481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation and self-regulation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297–323). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garner, R., & Reis, R. (1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: An investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among upper-grade good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. George, E. (2008). Careless in red. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  13. Grabe, M., Antes, J., Thorson, I., & Kahn, H. (1987). Eye fixation patterns during informed and uninformed comprehension monitoring. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 123–140.Google Scholar
  14. Grabe, M., Antes, J., Kahn, H., & Kristjanson, A. (1991). Adult and adolescent readers’ comprehension monitoring performance: An investigation of monitoring accuracy and related eye movements. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hyönä, J., Lorch, R., & Rinck, M. (2003). Eye movement measures to study global text processing. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 313–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Just, M., Carpenter, P., & Wooley, J. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixations in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high- and low-achieving primary school children’s reading. Learning & Instruction, 5, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (2009). Comprehension monitoring in good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation study with elementary school students. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. Kinnunen, R., Vauras, M., & Niemi, P. (1998). Comprehension monitoring in beginning readers. Scientific Studies in Reading, 2, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinnunen, R., Vauras, M., & Kajamies, A. (2009). Development of comprehension monitoring in elementary school students: Evidence from traced on-line reading. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  22. La Greca, A. M., & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nilsen, E. S., Graham, S. A., Smith, S., & Chambers, C. (2008). Preschoolers’ sensitivity to referential ambiguity: Evidence for a dissociation between implicit understanding and explicit behavior. Developmental Science, 11, 556–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 657–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5–22.Google Scholar
  27. Peterson, C., & Marrie, C. (1988). Even 4-year-olds can detect inconsistency. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Revelle, G., Wellman, H., & Karabenick, J. (1985). Comprehension monitoring in preschool children. Child Development, 56, 654–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rinck, M., Gámez, E., Díaz, J., & De Vega, M. (2003). Processing of temporal information: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 31, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rubman, C., & Waters, H. (2000). A, B seeing: The role of constructive processes in children’s comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruffman, T. (1996). Reassessing children’s comprehension monitoring skills. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 33–67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Skarakis-Doyle, E. (2002). Young children’s detection of violations in familiar stories and emerging comprehension monitoring. Discourse Processes, 33, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skarakis-Doyle, E., & Dempsey, L. (2008). The detection and monitoring of comprehension errors by preschool children with and without impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 51, 1227–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stothard, S., & Hulme, C. (1996). A comparison of reading comprehension and decoding difficulties in children. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 93–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Tinker, M. (1928). Eye movement duration, pause duration, and reading time. Psychological Review, 35, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van der Schoot, M., Vasbinder, A., Horsley, T, Reijntjes, A., & van Lieshout, E. (2009). Lexical ambiguity resolution good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in primary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies in discourse comprehension. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  39. Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., Kinnunen, R., & Salonen, P. (1992). Socioemotional and cognitive processes in training learning disabled children. In B. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R., & Rauhanummi, T. (1999). The role of metacognition in the context of integrated strategy intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vauras, M., Rauhanummi, T., Kinnunen, R., & Lepola, J. (1999). Motivational vulnerability as a challenge for educational interventions. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vauras, M. (2006). SOLE. The social in learning: Upbringing socially and academically competent, motivated, and self- and co-regulated young learners in school and family contexts. Unpublished research plan. Academy of Finland.Google Scholar
  43. Vauras, M., Efklides, A., Kinnunen, R., Salonen, P., & Junttila, N. (2007). Mood and metacognitive experiences scale for children. Unpublished assessment scale.Google Scholar
  44. Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R., Salonen, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2008). Emotions in comprehension monitoring and regulation. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 17.Google Scholar
  45. Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E., & Kinnunen, R. (2009). Motivation in school from contextual and longitudinal perspective. In M. Wosnitza, S. A. Karabenick, A. Efklides, & P. Nenniger (Eds.), Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives (pp. 1–23). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe-Huber.Google Scholar
  46. Vosniadou, S., Pearson, P., & Rogers, T. (1988). What causes children’s failures to detect inconsistencies in text? Representation versus comparison difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wagoner, S. (1983). Comprehension monitoring: What it is and what we know about it. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walczyk, J. J., Wei, M., Zha, P., Griffith-Ross, D. A., Goubert, S. E., & Cooper, A. L. (2007). Development of the interplay between automatic processes and cognitive resources in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 867–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. (1986). Children’s comprehension monitoring and recall of inconsistent stories. Child Development, 57, 1401–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zabrucky, K., & Ratner, H. (1989). Effects of reading ability on children’s comprehension evaluation and regulation. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 69–83.Google Scholar
  51. Zwaan, R., & Radvansky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Learning ResearchUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations