Abstract
This paper examines evaluation in reading. Evaluation refers to the processes by which readers monitor their ongoing text comprehension to assess performance and task difficulties. Monitoring is assumed to explain a large proportion of individual differences in text comprehension, in that individuals need to be aware of their objectives and difficulties in order to adjust their strategies to match task requirements. The participants were French children in grades 3 and 5. Study 1 examined their evaluation-related knowledge (i.e., knowledge about reading objectives, sources of difficulties, comprehension awareness). Study 2 examined the children’s actual evaluation behavior during a comprehension task. The results showed that few children provided elaborate verbalizable knowledge about reading tasks, goals and corresponding skills, and that in most cases the children were highly confident in their responses to text comprehension questions, regardless of the correctness of their answer. The contribution of metalinguistic awareness to literacy acquisition as well as the implications of this type of study for educational practice are discussed.
Résumé
L’article porte sur les compétences des enfants à s’auto-évaluer en lecture. L’auto-évaluation renvoie aux processus de contrôle mis en oeuvre par le lecteur au cours de la lecture d’un texte, pour estimer sa performance et les difficultés de sa tâche. L’hypothèse générale est que l’auto-évaluation contribue fortement aux différences individuelles en compréhension écrite dans la mesure ou l’individu doit être conscient de ses objectifs et des difficultés qu’il rencontre pour adapter au mieux ses stratégies aux contraintes des tâches. Les participants de l’étude sont des enfants français en 3ème et 5ème année de l’école primaire (CE2 et CM2). La première étude examine leurs connaissances relatives à l’auto-évaluation (connaissance des objectifs de lecture et des sources de difficultés, par exemple). La deuxième étude examine leurs comportements effectifs d’auto-évaluation au cours d’une tâche de compréhension. Les résultats montrent, d’une part, que peu d’enfants témoignent de connaissances élaborées sur l’activité de lecture, les objectifs et les capacités requises, et d’autre part que beaucoup sont très confiants dans leurs réponses aux questions de compréhension, indépendamment de la qualité de ces réponses. Les implications théoriques, sur le rôle du développement métalinguistique, et pratiques, pour l’éducation, sont discutées.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aubret, J., & Blanchard, S. (1991).L’évaluation des compétences en lecture. Issy-les-Moulineaux: Editions des Applications Psychotechniques.
Baker, L. (1996). Social influences on metacognitive development in reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.),Reading comprehension difficulties, processes and intervention (pp. 331–351). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beal, C.R. (1996). The role of comprehension monitoring in children’s revision.Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 219–238.
Borkowski, J.G., & Burke, J.E. (1996). Theories, model, and measurements of executive functioning: An information processing perspective. In G.R. Lyon, & N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.),Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 235–261). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Borkowski, J.G., Chan L.K.S., & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw (Ed.),Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 1–41). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
Brossard, M. (1993). Un cadre théorique pour aborder l’éves en situation scolaire.Enfance, 46(4), 189–199.
Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.),Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A.L., Armbruster, B.B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.),Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice (pp. 49–75), Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
Cain, K. (1999). Ways of reading: How knowledge and use of strategies are related to reading comprehension.British Journal of developmental Psychology, 17, 295–312.
Cataldo, M.G., & Cornoldi, C. (1998). Self-monitoring in poor and good reading comprehenders and their use of strategy.British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 155–165.
De Sousa, I., & Oakhill, J. (1996). Do levels of interest have an effect on children’s comprehension monitoring performance?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 471–482.
Ehrlich, M.F., Rémond, M., & Tardieu, H. (1999). Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring.Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 29–63
Ehrlich, M.F., Kurtz-Costes, B., Rémond, M. & Loridant, C. (1995). Les differences individuelles dans la compéhension de l’écrit: Facteurs cognitivo-linguistiques et motivationnels.Cahiers d’acquisition et de la pathologie du langage, 13(1), 37–58.
Eme, P.E., & Rouet, J.F. (2001). Les connaissances métacognitives en lecture compréhension chez l’enfant et l’adulte.Enfance, 4, 309–328.
Eme, P.E., & Rouet, J.F. (2002). Aspects métacognitifs dans l’apprentissage de la lecture-compréhension.L’Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 31(1), 97–116.
Garcia-Arista, E., Campanario, J.M., & Otero, J. (1996). Influence of subject matter setting on comprehension monitoring.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(4), 427–441.
Garner, R. (1990). Children’s use of strategies in reading. In D.F. Bjorklund (Ed.),Children’s strategies: Contemporary views of cognitive development (pp. 245–268), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glenberg, A.M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11(4), 702–718.
Goigoux, R. (2000). Apprendre à lire à l’école: Les limites d’une approche idéovisuelle.Psychologie française, 45(3), 233–243.
Gombert, J.E. (1992).Metalinguistic Development. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.P. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hacker, D.J. (1997). Comprehension monitoring of written discourse across early-to-middle adolescence.Reading and Writting: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 207–204.
Hall, K., Myers, J., & Bowman, H. (1999). Tasks, texts and contexts: a study of reading and metacgnition in English and Irish primary classrooms.Educational Studies, 25(3), 311–325.
Jacobs, J.E., & Paris, S.G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction.Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992).Beyond Modularity: a Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Bradford Books.
Kurtz-Costes, B., Ehrlich, M.F., McCall, R., & Loridant, C. (1995). Motivational determinants of reading comprehension: A comparison of French, Caucasian-American, and African-American adolescentsApplied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 351–364.
Lefavrais, P. (1986).La pipe et le rat. L’évaluation du savoir lire. Issy-les-Moulineaux: Editions des Applications Psychotechniques.
Linn, L.M., & Zabrucky, K.M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345–391.
Lovett, S.B., & Flavell, J.H. (1990). Understanding and remembering: Children’s knowledge about the differential effects of strategy and task variables on comprehension and memorization.Child Development, 61, 1842–1858.
Lovett, S.B., & Pillow, B.H. (1995). Development of the ability to distinguish between comprehension and memory: Evidence from strategy-selection tasks.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 523–536.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.
Myers, M., & Paris, S.G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 680–690.
Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: processes and remediation. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.),Reading Comprehension Difficulties, Processes and Intervention (pp. 69–92. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Palinesar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Paris, S.G. (2002). When is metacognition formative, debilitating, or benign? In P. Chambres, M. Izaute, & P.J. Maresceaux (Eds.),Metacognition: Process, function and use (pp. 105–120). Dordrecht Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Paris, S.G., & Jacobs, J.E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills.Child Development, 55, 2083–2093.
Pressley, M., Almasi, J., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Hite, S., El-Dinary, P.B., & Brown, R. (1994). Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies: The Montgomery County, Maryland, SAIL program.Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 5–19.
Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269–286.
Rogoff, B. (1981). Integrating context and cognitive development. In M.E. Lamb & A.L. Brown (Eds.),Advances in developmental psychology (vol. 2, pp. 125–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rouet, J.F., & Eme, P.E. (2002). The role of metatextual knowledge in text comprehension: Some issues in development and individual differences. In P. Chambres M. Izaute., & P.J. Maresceaux (Eds.),Metacognition: Process, function and use (pp. 121–134). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M.A., & Perfetti, C.A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise.Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85–106.
Rubman, C.N., & Waters, H.S. (2000). A, B Seeing: The role of construtive processes in children’s comprehension monitoring.Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 505–514.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schraw, G. (1998). The development of metacognition. In M.C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Eds.),Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 89–106), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schraw, G., & Roedel, T.D. (1994). Test difficulty and judgment bias.Memory and Cognition, 22(1), 63–69.
Schubauer-Leoni, M.L., & Grossen, M. (1993). Negotiating the meaning of questions in didactic and experimental contracts.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(4), 451–471.
Vygotsky, L. (1978).Mind in society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weaver, C.A. (1990). Constraning factors in calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16 214–222.
Wertsch, J.V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes. A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory.Human Development, 22 1–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eme, E., Puustinen, M. & Coutelet, B. Individual and developmental differences in reading monitoring: When and how do children evaluate their comprehension?. Eur J Psychol Educ 21, 91–115 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173571
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173571