Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:00:03.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Improving Students’ Metacomprehension Accuracy

from Part V - Metacognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

By
Thomas D. Griffin ,
Marta K. Mielicki  and
Jennifer Wiley
Edited by
John Dunlosky  and
Katherine A. Rawson
John Dunlosky
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Katherine A. Rawson
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Get access

Summary

Effective self-regulated study depends upon how accurately students can assess their comprehension of material. How accurate learners are in monitoring and judging their understanding from text is known as metacomprehension accuracy. This chapter provides a theoretical and methodological overview of metacomprehension, an empirical review of over eighty studies that have measured students’ relative metacomprehension accuracy when learning from texts, and a contrast of relative accuracy with other measures.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , pp. 619 - 646
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, R. & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 18–32.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128, 110–118.Google Scholar
Benjamin, A. S. & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In Reder, L. M. (ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 309–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Benjamin, A. S. & Diaz, M. (2008). Measurement of relative metamnemonic accuracy. In Dunlosky, J. & Bjork, R. A. (eds.), Handbook of memory and metamemory (pp. 73–94). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Commander, N. E., Zhao, Y., Li, H., Zabrucky, K. M., & Agler, L. M. L. (2014). American and Chinese students’ calibration of comprehension and performance. Current Psychology, 33, 655–671.Google Scholar
Connor, L. T., Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1997). Age-related differences in absolute but not relative metamemory accuracy. Psychology and Aging, 12, 50–71.Google Scholar
de Bruin, A. B. H., Thiede, K. W., Camp, G., & Redford, J. (2011). Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 294–310.Google Scholar
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J. & Lipko, A.R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228–232.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Mueller, M. L., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Methodology for investigating human metamemory. In Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 23–38). Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Dunlosky, J. & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory and Cognition, 20, 374–380.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J. & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produced underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22, 271–280.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fischer, P. M. & Mandl, H. (1984). Learner, text variables, and the control of text comprehension and recall. In Mandl, H., Stein, N. L., & Trabasco, T. (eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 213–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukaya, T. (2013) Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy. Metacognition Learning, 8, 1–18.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702–718.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., & Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory and Cognition, 37, 1001–1013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. (2013). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring. In Azevedo, R. & Aleven, V. (eds.) International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 19–34). New York: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 and Cognition, 36, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2018). The effects of comprehension-test expectancies on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000634Google Scholar
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 208–216.Google Scholar
Jaeger, A. J. & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy?. Learning and Instruction, 34, 58–73.Google Scholar
Jaeger, A. J. & Wiley, J. (2015). Reading an analogy can cause the illusion of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 52, 376–405.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, H. & Linderholm, T. (2014). Effects of self-perception of reading skill on absolute accuracy of metacomprehension judgments. Current Psychology, 33, 73–88.Google Scholar
Maki, R. H. (1998a) Metacomprehension of text: Influence of absolute confidence level on bias and accuracy. In Medin, D. L. (ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 223–248). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Maki, R. H. (1998b). Test predictions over text material. In Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A.C. (eds), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maki, R. H. & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663–679.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you don’t understand: A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986–992.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masson, M. E. & Rotello, C. M. (2009). Sources of bias in the Goodman–Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: Implications for studies of metacognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 509–527.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 349–363.Google Scholar
Millis, K. K., Simon, S., & tenBroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 26, 232–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of feeling-of-knowing accuracy. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. O. & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect.” Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1980). A new technique for investigating the feeling of knowing. Acta Psychologica, 46, 69–80.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 26, pp. 125–141. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nesbit, J. C. & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.Google Scholar
Otero, J. (1998). Influence of knowledge activation and context on comprehension monitoring of science texts. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 145–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). The effect of metacomprehension judgment task on comprehension monitoring and metacognitive accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 7, 113–131.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pilegard, C. & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Within-subject and between-subject conceptions of metacomprehension accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In Schraw, G. & Impara, J.C. (eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.Google Scholar
Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. (2007). Improving students’ self-evaluation of learning for key concepts in textbook materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 559–579.Google Scholar
Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1004–1010.Google Scholar
Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22, 262–270.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M. G. & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 131–148.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B.L. & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. P. (eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 93–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Serra, M. J. & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgments reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18, 698–711.Google Scholar
Shiu, L. & Chen, Q. (2013). Self and external monitoring of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 78–88.Google Scholar
Stensvold, M. S. & Wilson, J. T. (1990). The interaction of verbal ability with concept mapping in learning from a chemistry laboratory activity. Science Education, 74, 473–480.Google Scholar
Thiede, K. W. & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 129–160.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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, and Cognition, 25, 1024–1037.Google Scholar
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, and Cognition, 31, 1267–1280.Google ScholarPubMed
Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47, 331–362.Google Scholar
Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds). Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 85–106). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thiede, K. W., Redford, J. S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Elementary school experience with comprehension testing may influence metacomprehension accuracy among seventh and eighth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 554–564.Google Scholar
Thiede, K. W., Redford, J. S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2017). How restudy decisions affect overall comprehension for 7th grade students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 590–605.Google Scholar
Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 264–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, A. K. & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The negative cascade of incongruent task-test processing in memory and metamemory. Memory and Cognition, 35, 668–678.Google Scholar
van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B. H., van Gog, T., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Dunlosky, J. (2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 151, 143–154.Google Scholar
Weaver, C. A. & 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.Google Scholar
Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M. C. (ed.), Handbook on research in teaching, 3rd edn. (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Jaeger, A. J., Jarosz, A. F., Cushen, P. J., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 393–405.Google Scholar
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408–428.Google Scholar
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). To understand your understanding, you must understand what understanding means. In Love, B. C., McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 817–822). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension with the situation-model approach. In Mokhtari, K., Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading instruction for first and second language readers (pp. 93–110). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wiley, J., Jaeger, A. J., Taylor, A. R., & Griffin, T. D. (2017). When analogies harm: The effects of analogies and valid cues on the metacomprehension of science text. Learning and Instruction, 55, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.001Google Scholar
Wiley, J. & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109–129.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. Sarmento, D., Griffin, T. D., & Hinze, S. R. (2017). Biology textbook graphics and their impact on expectations of understanding, Discourse Processes, 54, 463–478.Google Scholar
Winne, P. H. & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Yates, J. E (1990). Judgment and decision-making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Zhao, Q. & Linderholm, T. (2011). Anchoring effects on prospective and retrospective metacomprehension judgments as a function of peer performance information. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–72.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×