The effect of metacomprehension judgment task on comprehension monitoring and metacognitive accuracy

Metacognition and Learning

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 113-131

  Ozuru, Yasuhiro ^a   Kurby, Christopher A ^b   McNamara, Danielle S ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE   (United States)

^b GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension judgment; Metacomprehension; Science text

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864134106     PISSN: 15561623     EISSN: 15561631     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11409-012-9087-y     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128, 110-118.
2. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 127, 55-68.
3. Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M., & Oser, R. L. (2002). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: use of diagrams in computer-based training environments. Instructional Science, 30, 433-463.
4. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Effects of question-generation training on reading com-prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 256-262.
5. Dunlosky, J., & Bjork, R. A. (Eds.). (2008). A handbook of metamemoryand memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.
6. Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: a brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228-232.
7. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., & Hacker, D. (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. 225-279). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
9. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15, 84-93.
10. Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 116, 119-136.
11. Graesser, A., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
12. Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93-103.
13. Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The effect of domain knowledge on metacomprehneison accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1001-1013.
14. Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 114, 357-374.
15. Hyona, J., Lorch, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 44-55.
16. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
17. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
18. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100, 609-639.
20. Linderholm, T., Zao, Q., Therriault, D. J., & Cordell-McNulty, K. (2008). Metacomprehension effects situated within an anchoring and adjustment framework. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 175-188.
21. MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Gates-MacGinitie reading test (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: The Riverside Publishing Company.
22. Maki, R. H., & Serra, M. (1992a). Role of practice tests in the accuracy of test predictions on text material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 200-210.
23. Maki, R. H., & Serra, M. (1992b). The basis of test predictions for text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 116-126.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Moore, D., Lin-Agler, L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2005). A source of metacomprehension inaccuracy. Reading Psychology, 26, 251-265.
27. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
28. Myers, D. G. (2001). Psychology, sixth edition in modules. New York: Worth Publishers.
29. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109-133.
30. O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121-152.
31. Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 399-438.
32. Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Are predictions of performance for text based on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 69-80.
33. Rawson, K., Dunlosky, J., & McDonald, S. (2002). Influences of metamemory on performance predictions for text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 505-524.
34. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
35. Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 129-160.
36. Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. S. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition and Self-regulated learning. Earlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
37. Thomas, A. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Metacomprehension for educationally relevant materials: Dramatic effects of encoding-retrieval interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 212-218.
38. Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408-428.
39. Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2008). Adult metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 191-206.