Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 93-103

  Griffin, Thomas D ^a   Wiley, Jennifer ^a   Thiede, Keith W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; READING; TASK PERFORMANCE; VALIDITY; WORKING MEMORY; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; PERIODICITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SHORT TERM MEMORY; TIME;

COGNITION; CUES; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; PERIODICITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 41649104306     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.1.93     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. AIKEN, L. S., & WEST, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. BENJAMIN, A. S., BJORK, R. A., & SCHWARTZ, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metacognitive index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55-68.
3. BOL, A. S., & HACKER, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review on performance and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 133-151.
4. BOL, A. S., HACKER D. J., O'SHEA, P., & DWIGHT, A. (2005). The influence of overt practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 269-290.
5. CHI, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. CHI, M. T. H., DE LEEUW, N., CHIU, M., & LAVANCHER, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
7. CONWAY, A. R. A., KANE, M. J., BUNTING, M. F., HAMBRICK, D. Z., WILHELM, O., & ENGLE, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769-786.
8. DUNLOSKY, J., & RAWSON, K. A. (2005). Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis for the rereading effect. Discourse Processes, 40, 37-55.
9. DUNLOSKY, J., RAWSON, K. A., & HACKER, D. J. (2002). Metacomprehension of science text: Investigating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 255-279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. 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 & Language, 52, 551-565.
11. ENGLE, R. W., KANE, M. J., & TUHOLSKI, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. FISCHER, P. M., & MANDL, H. (1984). Learner, text variables, and control of text comprehension and recall. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 213-254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. FLAVELL, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
14. GARNER, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15. GLENBERG, M. A., & EPSTEIN, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 702-718.
16. GLOVER, J. A. (1989). Improving readers' estimates of learning from text: The role of inserted questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 68-75.
17. HACKER, D. J., BOL, L., HORGAN, D. D., & RAKOW, E. A. (2000). Text prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160-170.
18. KEENAN, J. M., BETJEMANN, R. S., WADSWORTH, S. J., DEFRIES, J. C., & OLSON, R. K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 75-91.
19. KINTSCH, W. (1994). Learning from text. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303.
20. KINTSCH, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. KORIAT, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370.
22. KORIAT, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289-325). New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. LIN, L., & ZABRUCKY, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345-391.
24. MAGLIANO, J. P., MILLIS, K., OZURUB, Y., & MCNAMARA, D. S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theory, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. MAKI, R. H. (1998). Test predictions over text material. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. MAKI, R. H., & BERRY, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 4, 663-679.
27. MAKI, R. H., HOLDER, E. W., & MCGUIRE, M. J. (2001, November). Metacomprehension of text: A test of the optimum effort hypothesis. Paper presented at the 42:nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
28. MAKI, R. H., JONAS, D., & KALLOD, M. (1994). The relationship between comprehension and metacomprehension ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 126-129.
29. MAKI, R, H., SHIELDS, M., WHEELER, A., & ZACCHILLI, T. (2005). Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 723-731.
30. MAKI, R. H., & SWETT, S. (1987). Metamemory for narrative text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 72-83.
31. MCNAMARA, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
32. MILLIS, K. K., SIMON, S., & TENBROEK, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of science texts. Memory & Cognition, 26, 232-246.
33. NELSON, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measure of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109-133.
34. NELSON, T. O. (1996). Gamma is a measure of the accuracy of predicting performance on one item relative to another item, not of the absolute performance on an individual item. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 395-411.
35. NELSON, T. O., & NARENS, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125-173). New York: Academic Press.
36. NELSON, T. O., & NARENS, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalf & A. P. Shimanura (Eds.), Metacognition (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. PERFETTI, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. PRESSLEY, M., SNYDER, B. A., LEVIN, J. R., MURRAY, H. G., & GHATALA, E. S. (1987). Perceived readiness for examination performance (PREP) produced by initial reading of text and text containing adjunct questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 219-236.
39. RAWSON, K. A., & DUNLOSKY, J. (2002). Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 8, 69-80.
40. RAWSON, K. A., DUNLOSKY, J., & THIEDE, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004-1010.
41. ROYER, J. M., CARLO, M., DUFRESNE, T., & MESTRE, J. (1996). The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 373-408.
42. SCHNEIDER, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. Mackinnon, & T. G. Walker (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 57-110). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
43. THIEDE, K. W., & ANDERSON, M. C. M. (2004, April). Students' insights into comprehension monitoring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
44. THIEDE, K. W., ANDERSON, M. C. M., & THERRIAULT, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73.
45. THIEDE, K. W., & DUNLOSKY, J. (1999). Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 1024-1037.
46. THIEDE, K. W., DUNLOSKY, J., GRIFFIN, T. D., & WILEY, J. (2005). Understanding the delayed keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1267-1280.
47. WEAVER, C. A. (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 214-222.
48. WEAVER, C. A., BRYANT, D. S., & BURNS, K. D. (1995). Comprehension monitoring: Extensions of the Kintsch and van Dijk model. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 177-193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. WILEY, J., GRIFFIN, T. D., & THIEDE, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408-428.
50. WILEY, J., & VOSS, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
51. YUILL, N., & OAKHILL, J. (1991). Children's problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.