DIFFERENT STRATEGIES FOR ASSESSING READING COMPREHENSION IN ADULTS. FROM ALPHA TO OMEGA
Abstract
Comprehension constitutes the main purpose of reading, one of the most important human skills. Furthermore, reading and therefore comprehension are perplexing procedures, that are built through the interaction of the cognitive functions. Comprehension occurs in a cognitive and metacognitve level. Meta-comprehension indeed, constitutes an important interpretive factor of learning, especially in the field of text comprehension. The present review study attempts to emphasizes and interpret a variety of research protocols, which have as an ultimate goal text comprehension evaluation and improvement in adult population. Implications for integrating different comprehension-monitoring experimental designs to improve text comprehension in adults are discussed.
Article visualizations:
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
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.
Baekgaard, M., & Serritzlew, S. (2016). Interpreting performance information: Motivated reasoning or unbiased comprehension. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 73-82.
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.
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, F. T. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 3 (1), 32-59.
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.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.3025
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Maria Sofologi, Maria Efstratopoulou, Afroditi Kamari, Eleni Bonti, Aikaterini Katsiana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
