Individual Differences for Self-Regulating Task-Oriented Reading Activities

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 102, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 817-826

  Vidal Abarca, Eduardo ^a   Mañá, Amelia ^a   Gil, Laura ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE EDUCACIÓN A DISTANCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Individual differences; Monitoring comprehension; Reading comprehension; Self regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649696315     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020062     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Azevedo R. Understanding the complex nature of self-regulatory processes in learning with computer-based learning environments: An introduction. Metacognition Learning 2007, 2:57-65. doi: 10.1007/s11409-007-9018-5.
2. Cerdán R., Vidal-Abarca E. The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology 2008, 100:209-222. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.209.
3. Dunlosky J., Lipko A. Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2007, 16:228-232. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x.
4. Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A. Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis for the reading effect. Discourse Processes 2005, 40:37-55. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4001_2.
5. Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A., Hacker D.J. Metacomprehension of science text: Investigating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis. The psychology of science text comprehension 2002, 255-279. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. J. Otero, J.A. Leon, A.C. Graesser (Eds.).
6. Dunlosky J., Rawson K., Middleton E. What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:551-565. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.011.
7. Giulia Cataldo M., Oakhill J. 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 2000, 92:791-799. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.791.
8. Glover J. Reading ability and the calibrator of comprehension. Educational Research Quarterly 1989, 13:7-11.
9. Graesser A.C., Singer M., Trabasso T. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 1994, 101:371-395. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371.
10. Griffin T.D., Wiley J., Thiede K.W. Individual differences, rereading, and self- explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition 2008, 36:93-103. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.93.
11. Guthrie J.T. Locating information in documents: Examination of a cognitive model. Reading Research Quarterly 1988, 23:178-199. doi: 10.2307/747801.
12. Guthrie J.T., Kirsch I.S. Distinctions between reading comprehension and locating information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology 1987, 79:220-227. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.79.3.220.
13. Hacker D.J. Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. Metacognition in educational theory and practice 1998, 165-191. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. D.J. Hacker, A.C. Graesser, J. Dunlosky (Eds.).
14. Hannon B., Daneman M. Shallow semantic processing of text: An individual-differences account. Discourse Processes 2004, 37:187-204. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3703_1.
15. Kintsch W. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 1988, 95:163-182. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.
16. Lin L.M., Moore D., Zabrucky K.M. An assessment of students' calibration of comprehension and calibration of performance using multiple measures. Reading Psychology 2001, 22:111-128. doi: 10.1080/027027101300213083.
17. Long D., Oppy B., Sheely M. Individual differences in readers' sentence- and text-level representations. Journal of Memory and Language 1997, 36:129-145. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.2485.
18. Maki R.H. Test predictions over text material. Metacognition in educational theory and practice 1998, 117-144. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. D.J. Hacker, A.C. Graesser, J. Dunlosky (Eds.).
19. Maki R.H., Jonas D., Kallod M. The relationship between comprehension and metacomprehension ability. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1994, 1:126-129.
20. Maki R.H., Shields M., Wheeler A.E., Zachilli T.L. Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Educational Psychology 2005, 97:723-731. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.723.
21. Maña A., Vidal-Abarca E., Dominguez C., Gil L., Cerdán R. Papel de los procesos metacognitivos en una tarea de pregunta-respuesta con textos escritos [The role of metacognitive processes on a question-answering task with written texts]. Infancia y Aprendizaje 2009, 32:553-565.
22. McCrudden M.T., Magliano J., Schraw G. Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals, and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2009, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001.
23. McCrudden M.T., Schraw G. Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19:113-139. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7.
24. McNamara D.S., Magliano J.P. Self-explanation and metacognition: The dynamics of reading. Handbook of metacognition in education 2009, 60-81. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. D.J. Hacker, A.C. Graesser, J. Dunlosky (Eds.).
25. Metcalfe J., Finn B. Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2008, 15:174-179. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.1.174.
26. Nelson T.O., Dunlosky J., Narens L. A revised methodology for research on metamemory: Pre-judgment recall and monitoring (PRAM). Psychological Methods 2004, 9:53-69. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.53.
27. Programme for International Student Assessment: Sample tasks from the PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy 2002, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Author, Paris, France.
28. Otero J. Noticing and fixing difficulties in understanding science texts. The psychology of science text comprehension 2002, 281-307. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. J. Otero, J.A. León, A. Graesser (Eds.).
29. Otero J., Campanario J.M. Comprehension, evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1990, 27:447-460. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660270505.
30. Ozuru Y., Best R., Bell C., Witherspoon A., McNamara D. Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction 2007, 25:399-438.
31. Rawson K.A., Dunlosky J. Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:69-80. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.69.
32. Rouet J.-F. Question answering and document search. The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning 2006, 93-121. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. J.-F. Rouet (Ed.).
33. Royer J.M., Carlo M.S., Dufresne R., Mestre J. The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading. Cognition and Instruction 1996, 14:373-408. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1403_4.
34. Rubman C., Waters H. A, B seeing: The role of constructive processes in children's comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology 2000, 92:503-514. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.503.
35. Salmerón, L., Vidal-Abarca, E., Mana, A., Martínez, T., Gil, L., & Naumann, J. (2009). Reading strategies in task oriented reading: The case of PISA-like tasks. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36. Snow C. Reading for understanding 2002, RAND Reading Study Group, Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/.
37. van den Broek P., Risdem K., Husebye-Hatmann E. The role of readers' standard for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. Sources of coherence in text comprehension 1995, 353-373. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. R.F. Lorch (Ed.).
38. van den Broek P., Young M., Tzeng Y., Linderholm T. The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the on-line construction of a memory representation. The construction of mental representations during reading 1999, 71-98. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. H. van Oostendorp, S.R. Goldman (Eds.).
39. Vidal-Abarca E., Gilabert R., Martínez T., Sellés P., Abad N., Ferrer C. TEC: Test de Estrategias de Comprensión [Test of Comprehension Strategies] 2007, ICCE, Madrid, Spain.
40. Warner R.M. Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques 2007, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
41. Weaver C.A., Bryant D.S., Burns K.D. Comprehension monitoring: Extensions of the van Dijk and Kintsch model. Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch 1995, 177-193. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. C.A. Weaver, S. Mannes, C.R. Fletcher (Eds.).