Individual differences in relative metacomprehension accuracy: variation within and across task manipulations

Abstract

In recent decades, increasing numbers of studies have focused on metacomprehension accuracy, or readers' ability to distinguish between texts comprehended more vs. less well. Following early findings that suggested readers are fairly poor at doing so, a number of studies have identified specific tasks to supplement a single reading of text that have resulted in greater metacomprehension accuracy. One assumption underlying these studies is that, in the absence of such tasks, metacomprehension accuracy is uniformly poor, and given their implementation, readers uniformly improve. Here we describe the individual variation that occurs both in the absence (e.g., within a single text reading manipulation) and presence (e.g., within a rereading or selective rereading task manipulation) of these supplementary tasks (N=214), in order to make a case for greater attention to individual differences in metacomprehension accuracy. We also introduce a new manipulation in metacomprehension research, selective rereading, and argue that certain types of tasks may be more likely to reveal individual differences in metacomprehension accuracy due to the nature of the task being more or less demanding on working memory capacity.In order to successfully learn from text, students must be able to estimate their level of text comprehension with at least some degree of accuracy. Accurate estimations of comprehension or metacomprehension accuracy permit more effective regulation of study. For example, identifying content that has been mastered in contrast to content that remains puzzling is necessary for students to selectively focus attention on problematic text material.

To What Extent Do Situation-Model-Approach Interventions Improve Relative Metacomprehension Accuracy? Meta-Analytic Insights

“…This outcome supports the theoretical distinction between the two mechanisms: Interventions like selfexplaining enable the generation of situation-model cues, whereas rereading enhances the attention to the cues (Griffin et al 2008, Experiment 2). It should be noted, however, that some studies did not find a benefit of rereading over reading once (Chiang et al 2010;Margolin and Snyder 2018), and, in some studies, learners exhibited low relative metacomprehension accuracy despite rereading (Bugg and McDaniel 2012;Pao 2014;, Experiment 1).…”

Mind the Gap Between Comprehension and Metacomprehension: Meta-Analysis of Metacomprehension Accuracy and Intervention Effectiveness

“…For instance, previous studies found that individuals with high working memory capacity (S. Chen, 2010;Chiang, 2007;Chiang, Therriault, & Franks, 2010;Ni, 2019), high reading ability (Ozuru, Kurby, & McNamara, 2012), and high comprehension ability (Griffin et al, 2008) made more accurate comprehension judgments, and these individuals also performed better on criterion tests.…”

Κατανόηση Κειμένου Και Μετακατανόηση Σε Μαθητές Και Μαθήτριες Δημοτικού

“…Εξαιτίας της δυσκολίας που αντιμετωπίζουν τα παιδιά σχολικής ηλικίας αλλά και ενήλικες στην ανίχνευση κυρίως εσωτερικών αντιφάσεων στο περιεχόμενο κειμένων, το ερευνητικό ενδιαφέρον των μελετητών επικεντρώθηκε στον εντοπισμό των παραγόντων που εμπλέκονται στη διαδικασία της παρακολούθησης της κατανόησης και συμβάλλουν στην παρουσία ενός υψηλού επιπέδου ακρίβειας στην παρακολούθηση (π.χ., Anderson et al, 2008. Chiang et al, 2010.…”

“…(αναλυτική περιγραφή των παραγόντων που επηρεάζουν την κατανόηση κειμένου παρουσιάζονται αναλυτικά στο Κεφάλαιο 1). Στόχος αυτών των ερευνών είναι ο εντοπισμός εκείνων των παραγόντων που συμβάλλουν στην παρουσία ενός υψηλού επιπέδου ακρίβειας στην παρακολούθηση της κατανόησης (π.χ.,Anderson et al, 2008. Chiang et al, 2010.…”