Basis of metamemory judgments for text with multiple-choice, essay and recall tests

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 204-222

  Maki, Ruth H ^a   Willmon, Cynthia ^a   Pietan, Amy ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60149098438     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1440     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Baker, J. M. C., & Dunlosky, J. (2006). Does momentary accessibility influence metacomprehension judgments? The influence of study-judgment lags on accessibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 60-65.
2. Drum, P. A., Calfee, R. C., & Cook, L. K. (1981). The effects of surface structure variables on performance in reading comprehension tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 486-514.
3. 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, 551-565.
4. Gilliam, S., Magliano, J. P., Millis, K. K., Levinstein, I., & Boonthum, C. (2007). Assessing the format of the presentation of text in developing a Reading Strategy Assessment Tool (R-SAT). Behavior Research Methods, 39, 199-204.
5. Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 119-136.
6. Inquisit. 1.32 [Computer software]. (2002). Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.
7. Koriat, A. (1993). How dowe know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609-639.
8. Koul, R., Clarina, R. B., & Salehi, R. A. (2005). Comparing several human and computer-based methods for scoring concept maps and essays. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 227-239.
9. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
10. Latent Semantic AnalysisΓU Boulder. Retrieved October 29 (2007), http://lsa.colorado.edu/.
11. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P.W. (2003a). Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor™. In M. D. Shermis, & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. (2003b). Automatic essay assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 295-308.
13. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., Rehder, B., & Schreiner, M. E. (1997). How well can passage meaning be derived without using word order? A comparison of Latent Semantic Analysis and humans. In M. G. Shafto, & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 412-417). Mawhwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Magliano, J. P., Little, L. D., & Graesser, A. C. (1993). The impact of comprehension instruction on the calibration of comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 49-63.
15. Maki, R. H., & McGuire, M. J. (2002). Metacognition for text: Findings and implications for education. In T. J. Perfect, & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 39-67). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663-679.
17. Maki, R. H., Foley, J. M., Kajer, W. K., Thompson, R. C., & Willert, M. G. (1990). Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 609-616.
18. 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, 723-731.
19. Maki, R. H., & Swett, S. (1987). Metamemory for narrative text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 72-83.
20. Miesner, M. T., & Maki, R. H. (2007). The role of test anxiety in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 650-670.
21. Morris, C. C. (1990). Retrieval processes underlying confidence in comprehension judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 223-232.
22. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109-133.
23. Ornstein, A. C. (1992, January/February). Essay tests: Use, development, and grading. Clearing House, 65, 175-177.
24. Page, E. B. (2003). Project Essay Grade: PEG. In M. D. Shermis, & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 43-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Pressley, M., Snyder, B. L., Levin, J. R., Murray, H. G., & Ghatala, E. S. (1987). Perceived readiness of examination performance (PREP) produced by initial reading of text and text containing adjunct questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 219-236.
26. Schommer, M., & Surber, J. R. (1986). Comprehension-monitoring failure in skilled adult readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 353-357.
27. Spargo, E. (1989). Timed readings (3rd ed., Books 5, 7 and 10). Providence, RI: Jamestown Publishers.
28. Thiede, K., & Anderson, M. C. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 129-160.
29. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Delaying students' metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 290-302.
30. Thiede, K. W., Dunlosky, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2005). Understanding the delayed-keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1267-1280.
31. Weaver, C. A. III. (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 214-222.
32. Weaver, C. A., III, & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory and Cognition, 23, 12-22.