The role of metacognitive processes in a question-answering task with written texts;Papel de los procesos metacognitivos en una tarea de pregunta-respuesta con textos escritos

Infancia y Aprendizaje

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 553-565

  Mañ, Amelia ^a   Vidal Abarca, Eduardo ^a   Domínguez, Catalina ^b   Gil, Laura ^a   Cerdán, Raquel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Monitoring; Question answering; Reading comprehension; Self regulation processes

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649325086     PISSN: 02103702     EISSN: 15784126     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1174/021037009789610412     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Anderson, M. C. M. & Thiede, K. W. (2007). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128, 100-118.
2. August, D., Flavell, J. & Clift, R. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (1), 39-53.
3. 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 (1), 31-42.
4. Cataldo, M. G. & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why Are Poor Comprehenders Inefficient Searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (4), 791-799.
5. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R. & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19 (1), 13-27.
6. Coté, N., Goldman, S. & Saul, E. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25 (1), 1-53.
7. 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.
8. Glenberg, A. M. & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 702-718.
9. Graesser, A. C., & Franklin, S. P. (1990). Quest: A cognitive model of question answering. Discourse Processes, 13, 279-303.
10. Guthrie, J. T. (1988). Locating information in documents: Examination of a cognitive model. Reading Research Quarterly, 23 (2), 178-199.
11. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-Regulated Comprehension During Normal
12. Reading. En D. J. Hacker, A. C. Graesser & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 165-191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Hannon, B. & Daneman, M. (2004). Shallow Semantic Processing of Text: An individual-Differences Account. Discourse Processes, 37 (3), 187-204.
14. Hyönä, J., Kaakinen, J. & Lorch, R. F. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (1), 44-55.
15. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163-182.
16. Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609-639.
17. Long, D. & Chong, J. (2001). Comprehension Skill and Global Coherence: A Paradoxical Picture of Poor Comprehenders' Abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27 (6), 1424-1429.
18. Maki, R. H. (1998). Test Predictions over Text Material. En D. J. Hacker, A. C. Graesser & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 117-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Maki, R. H. & Berry, S. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 10, 663-679.
20. Martínez, T. & Sellés, P. (2002). Read&Answer. Un software para registrar procesos on-line de lectura y contestación a preguntas. Universidad de Valencia.
21. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura Y Deporte (2004). Aproximación a un modelo de evaluación: El proyecto PISA 2000. Madrid: Inecse.
22. Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. En G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125-173). Nueva York: Academic Press.
23. Otero, J. (1997). El conocimiento de la falta de conocimiento de un texto científico. Alambique, 11, 15-22.
24. Otero, J. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties in understanding science texts. En J. Otero, J. A. León & A. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 281-307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
25. Otero, J. & Campanario, J. M. (1990). Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (5), 447-460.
26. Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J. & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye Movements as Reflection of Comprehension Processes in Reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10 (3), 241-255.
27. Rouet, J-F. (2006). Question answering and document search. En J-F. Rouet (Ed.), The skills of document use. From text comprehension to web-based learning (pp. 93-121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M. & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning from texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 66-73.
29. Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R. Martínez, T., Sellés. P., Abad. N. & Ferrer, C. (2007). TEC. Test de Estrategias de Comprensión. Madrid: ICCE.
30. Zabrucky, K. & Ratner, H. (1992). Effects of passage type on comprehension monitoring and recall in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behaviour. 24 (3), 373-391.