Constructing different reading models for enhancing reading comprehension in adults

PDF (ελληνικά)
Published: Jan 28, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/jret.20219
Keywords:
comprehension monitoring Accuracy Text comprehension Adults
Maria Sofologi
University of Ioannina
Abstract

Text comprehension is the construction of meaning of and from the words and phrases in written material. It is the reader’s construction of an understanding of the relationship between the information in the text and what the reader already knows. Factors that influence text comprehension concerning both the text attributes (type, size, consistency) and the characteristics of the individual, such as previous knowledge, individual differences in cognition, motivation and metacognitive monitoring and control skills. Comprehension monitoring mirrors an individual’s ability to judge one’s cognitive performance while informs the learner about her or his learning progress. Accurate monitoring plays a key role in the reading process, because it triggers the onset of cognitive processing of the material and regulates the engagement time with it, contributing to the self-regulation of reading. A lot of emphasis has been put on examining comprehension monitoring in adults, mainly students. This review attempts to present and interpret different research patterns aiming to improve comprehension monitoring accuracy.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biography
Maria Sofologi, University of Ioannina

 Μετα-διδάκτορας Παιδαγωγικού Τμήματος Νηπιαγωγών

References
Anderson, G., & Beal, C. R. (1995). Children’s recognition of inconsistencies in science texts: multiple measures of comprehension monitoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 261-272.
Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 128, 110-118.
Annevirta, T., Laakkonen, E., Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (2007). Developmental dynamics of metacognitive knowledge and text comprehension skill in the first primary school years. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 21-39.
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.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31 – 42.
Chiang, E. S., Therriault, D. J., & Franks, B. A. (2010). Individual differences in relative metacomprehension accuracy: variation within and across task manipulations. Metacognition & Learning, 5, 121-135.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Jun Zhang, L. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462–473.
Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2001). Measuring strategy production during associative learning: the relative utility of concurrent versus retrospective reports. Memory & Cognition, 29, 247-253.
Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, R. (2007). Metacomprehension. A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228-232.
Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels of disruption hypotheses for the rereading effect. Discourse Processes, 4, 37-55.
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.
Dunlosky, J., Serra, M. J., Matvey, G., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Second-order judgments about judgments of learning. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 335-346.
Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, W. (2004). Causes and constrains of the shift to easier materials effect in the control study. Memory and Cognition, 32, 779-788.
Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, W. (2013). Four cornstones of calibration research: Why understanding students judgments can improve their achievement. Learning and Instruction, 24, 58-61.
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.
Hacker, D. J. (1997). Comprehension monitoring of written discourse across early to middle adolescence. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 207-240.
Hattie, J. (2013). Calibration and confidence: where to next? Learning and instruction, 24, 62-66.
Hertzog, C., Price, J., & Dunlosky, J. (2008). How is knowledge generated about memory encoding strategy effectiveness. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 430-445.
Hertzog, C., Saylor, L. L., Fleece, A. M., & Dixon, R. A. (1994). Metamemory and aging: Relations between predicted, actual and perceived memory task performance. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 1, 203-237.
Howie, P., & Roebers, C. M. (2007). Developmental progression in the confidence accuracy relationship in event recall: Insights provided by a calibration perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 871–893.
Jackson, J. D., & Balota, D. A. (2012). Mind-wandering in younger and older adults: converging evidence from the sustained attention to response task and reading for comprehension. Psychology of Aging, 27, 106–119.
Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning and Instruction, 34, 58–73.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high and low achieving primary school children’s reading. Learning and Instruction, 5, 143-165.
Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (2010). Tracking online metacognition: Monitoring and regulating comprehension in reading. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and prospects in Metacognition research (pp. 209–258). New York: Springer.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Learning from text. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303.
Kintsch, W. (1998). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kolić-Vehovec, S., Zubković, B. R., & Pahljina- Reinic, R. (2014). Development of metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies and attitudes toward reading in early adolescence: The effect on reading comprehension. Psychological Topics 23, 77-98.
Koriat, A. (2012). The self-consistency model of subjective confidence. Psychological Review, 119, 80-113.
Lin, M., Moore, D., & Zabrusky, K. (2001). An assessment of student’s calibration of comprehension and calibration of performance using multiple measures. Reading Psychology, 22, 111-128.
Lin, L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345-391.
Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with think aloud procedure and latent semantic analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-283.
Maki, (1998). Predicting performance on text. Delayed versus immediate predictions on tests. Memory & Cognition, 26, 959-964.
McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51- 62.
McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
McNamara, D. S., & Kendeou, P. (2011). Translating advances in reading comprehension research to educational practice. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 33-46.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Εds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297-384). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B., & De Beni, R. (2006). Components of reading comprehension and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 291-301.
Mills, C., D’Mello, S. K., & Kopp, K. (2015). The influence of consequence value and text difficulty on affect, attention and learning while reading instructional texts. Learning and Instruction, 40, 9-20.
Moore, D., Lin-Agler, L., & Zabrucky, K. (2005). A source of metacomprehension inaccuracy. Reading Psychology, 26, 251-265.
Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgment of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The delayed-JOL effect. Psychological Science, 2, 267-270.
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on monitoring accuracy and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 159-179.
Norman, Ε., & Furnes, Β. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 301-304.
Oakhill, J. (1993). Children’s difficulties in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 1–15.
Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2004). The development of comprehension skills. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Εds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 155-180). Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Kluwer.
Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 657-686.
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.
Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific studies of Reading, 11, 289-312.
Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2000). Improving students self-evaluation for key concepts in text book materials. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 559-579.
Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004-1010.
Rawson, K. A., O’Neil, R., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Accurate monitoring leads to effective control and greater learning of patient education materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 228–302.
Reutzel. D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20276-305.
Roebers, C. M. (2002). Confidence judgments in children's and adult's event recall and suggestibility. Developmental Psychology, 38, 1052.
Roelle, J., Schmidt, E. M., Buchau, A., & Berthold, K. (2017). Effects of informing learners about the dangers of overconfident judgments of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 99– 117.
Saenz, L.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31- 41.
Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). If it’s hard to read, it changes how long you do it: reading time as an explanation for perceptual fluency effects on judgment. Psychonomic Bulletin Rewiew, 22, 206-211.
Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 33-45.
Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgments reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18, 698–711.
Shafto, M. A. (2010). Orthographic error monitoring in old age: Lexical and sublexical availability during perception and production. Psychology of Aging, 25, 991–1001.
Shamir, A., Mevarech, Z. R., & Gida, G. (2009). The assessment of meta-cognition in different contexts: individualized vs. peer assisted learning. Metacognition Learning, 4, 47–61.
Shiu, L. P., & Chen, Q. (2013). Self and External Monitoring of Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 78–88.
Stolp, S., & Zabrusky, K. M. (2017). Contributions of metacognitive and self-regulated learning theories to investigations of calibration of comprehension. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2, 7-31.
Therrien, W. J., Kirk, J. F., & Woods-Groves, S. (2012). Comparison of a reading fluency intervention with and without passage repetition on reading achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 309-319.
Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summurizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 129-160.
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.
Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Delaying students metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 290-302.
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, & Cognition, 31, 1267-1280.
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, 43, 331-362.
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.
Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout – Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3 – 14.
Vossing, J., & Stamov-Roßnagel, C. (2016). Boosting metacomprehension accuracy in computer-supported learning: The role of judgment task and judgment scope. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 73-82.
Vorstious, C., Radach, R., Mayer, M. B., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). Monitoring local comprehension monitoring in sentence reading. School Psychology Review, 42, 191-206
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408-428.
Winne, P. H. (2004). Students’ calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 466-488.
Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 45, 267-276.
Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, Μ. M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.
Most read articles by the same author(s)