Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension.

Abstract

Two experiments investigated whether increased processing increases the relation between test performance predictions and test performance, i.e., increases calibration of comprehension. The amount of processing of text was manipulated by having subjects read intact text or text with deleted letters. In Experiment 1, intact versus deleted letters were manipulated within subjects, and subjects made either comprehension ease or test prediction ratings. Paragraphs with deleted letters produced higher correlations between predictions and test performance than did intact paragraphs. Better calibration with more processing was not observed for ratings of comprehension ease. In Experiment 2, in a between-subjects design, the prediction results were replicated; calibration was better for text with deleted letters than for intact text. The results show that subjects can predict performance on text material with greater than chance accuracy and that these predictions are better when subjects do more active processing during reading.

The negative cascade of incongruent generative study-test processing in memory and metacomprehension

“…Similar to the findings of Weaver and Bryant (1995), when participants were given expository texts to read, prediction accuracy was greater when detailed test questions were given than when conceptual test questions were given. Additionally, as with previous research, when participants were given the opportunity to make multiple metacomprehension predictions (Weaver & Bryant, 1995) and were given multiple test questions for a given passage (Maki et al, 1990), they were able to accurately predict how much information they would later be able to recall.…”

“…If so, the generative study activities used in the present study would have no effect on metacomprehension accuracy. A second prediction is that any increase in processing at encoding will yield more accurate metacomprehension predictions, regardless of the test context (Maki et al, 1990). Finally, if metacomprehension accuracy is modulated by transfer-appropriate considerations of desirable difficulty, generative processes appropriate to test questions should yield more accurate predictions than would either inappropriate generative processes or a reading study condition.…”

“…For example, how the prediction question is posed (Weaver & Bryant, 1995), how test questions are asked (Maki, Foley, Kajer, Thompson, & Willert, 1990), and how the test question is scored (Maki et al, 1990;Weaver, 1990) are variables that have been shown to affect metacomprehension accuracy. In addition, research suggests that manipulations requiring generative encoding enhance metacomprehension accuracy (Maki et al, 1990). Specifically, Maki et al found that predictions for paragraphs with deleted letters were more accurate than those for intact paragraphs.…”

“…Increasing processing at encoding through generative activities (generation of keywords, ; generating summaries of text material, ; reinserting deleted letters into text, Maki et al 1990) improves people's ability to predict how they will perform on a later test of memory. These metacomprehension findings are consistent with memory research that suggests that increasing generative activity at encoding improves long-term retention (McDaniel & Einstein, 2005).…”

Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes

“…Whereas the promise of fostering learning by introducing subtle disfluency manipulations in complex materials seems questionable, stronger disfluency manipulations that actually produce higher difficulties at encoding (e.g., deleting words from a passage) were found to be beneficial in more basic experimental research (Maki et al 1990). Such difficulties can be desirable, because they require more generative processing at encoding, producing stronger memory traces and hence fostering later recall (e.g., Bjork 1994).…”