The Relative Importance of Anticipated Test Format and Anticipated Test Difficulty on Performance

In this investigation, the relative importance of the effects of anticipated test format and anticipated test difficulty on performance was examined by simultaneously manipulating both. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that test performance was affected more by anticipated test format than by anticipated test difficulty. This suggests that the superior performance of subjects who had anticipated a recall test versus those who had anticipated a recognition test, reported here and in previous studies, is more likely to be due to anticipating a recall format than to anticipating a more difficult test. Experiment 2 showed that subjects who had anticipated a recall test studied longer than subjects who had anticipated a recognition test, even when recall tests were less difficult than recognition tests. One explanation for this finding is that subjects inaccurately monitor the relative difficulty of tests across test formats. Subjects rated recall items as more difficult than recognition items, even when recall items are actually less difficult (Experiment 3). These findings suggest that a priori metacognitive knowledge may reduce the accuracy of on-line metacognitive monitoring.     

The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning

Theory suggests that accuracy of metacognitive monitoring and self-regulation of study will affect test performance, but there is little empirical evidence linking these variables. I examined the relation among these variables in a multitrial learning task. Regression analyses showed that monitoring accuracy and self-regulation were reliably related to test performance--greater monitoring accuracy and more effective self-regulation were associated with greater test performance. These analyses were contrasted with analyses typically conducted in previous research, to show the importance of using a multitrial learning task and of attending to the theoretically based causal relation among variables when evaluating how monitoring accuracy and self-regulation are related to test performance. The results of this investigation may help to explain why previous research has failed to link these variables.     

Individual differences,rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy

The typical finding of metacomprehension studies is that accuracy in monitoring one's own level of understanding is quite poor. In the present experiments, monitoring accuracy was constrained by individual differences in both reading comprehension ability and working memory capacity (WMC), but rereading particularly benefited low-ability and low-WMC readers, effectively eliminating the relationship between monitoring accuracy and these reader characteristics. In addition, introducing a self-explanation reading strategy improved the accuracy of all the readers above mere rereading. The observed interaction between individual differences and rereading is interpreted in terms of concurrent-processing constraints involved in monitoring while text is processed, whereas the more general self-explanation effect is interpreted in terms of accessibility of valid, performance-predicting cues.     

Exploring metacognitive accuracy in visual search

For decades, researchers have examined visual search. Much of this work has focused on the factors (e.g., movement, set size, luminance, distractor features and proximity) that influence search speed. However, no research has explored whether people are aware of the influence of these factors. For instance, increases in set size will typically slow down target detection; yet no research has measured participants' metacognitive awareness of this phenomenon. The present research explores this area by integrating a visual search task with a metacognitive monitoring paradigm. All of the explored factors influenced search latency. However, all of the factors except target presence influenced ratings. Saliency and suppression are discussed as two possible explanations for the results. Future directions for extending the theory and the practical benefits of this research are also outlined.     

Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy?

We showed that metacomprehension accuracy improved when participants (N = 87 college students) wrote summaries of texts prior to judging their comprehension; however, accuracy only improved when summaries were written after a delay, not when written immediately after reading. We evaluated two hypotheses proposed to account for this delayed-summarization effect (the accessibility hypothesis and the situation model hypothesis). The data suggest that participants based metacomprehension judgments more on the gist of texts when they generated summaries after a delay; whereas, they based judgments more on details when they generated summaries immediately after reading. Focusing on information relevant to the situation model of a text (the gist of a text) produced higher levels of metacomprehension accuracy, which is consistent with situation model hypothesis.     

The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials

Guided by a hypothesis that integrates principles of monitoring from a cue-based framework of metacognitive judgments with assumptions about levels of text representation derived from theories of comprehension, we discovered that rereading improves metacomprehension accuracy. In Experiments 1 and 2, the participants read texts either once or twice, rated their comprehension for each text, and then were tested on the material. In both experiments, correlations between comprehension ratings and test scores were reliably greater for participants who reread texts than for participants who read texts only once. Furthermore, in contrast to the low levels of accuracy typically reported in the literature, rereading produced relatively high levels of accuracy, with the median gamma between ratings and test performance being +.60 across participants from both experiments. Our discussion focuses on two alternative hypotheses--that improved accuracy is an artifact of when judgments are collected or that it results from increased reliability of test performance--and on evidence that is inconsistent with these explanations for the rereading effect.     

Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy

Background. Theory suggests that the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring is affected by the cues used to judge learning. Researchers have improved monitoring accuracy by directing attention to more appropriate cues; however, this is the first study to more directly point students to more appropriate cues using instructions regarding tests and practice tests. Aims. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether the accuracy metacognitive monitoring was affected by the nature of the test expected. Sample and method. Students (N= 59) were randomly assigned to one of two test expectancy groups (memory vs. inference). Then after reading texts, judging learning, completed both memory and inference tests. Results. Test performance and monitoring accuracy were superior when students received the kind of test they had been led to expect rather than the unexpected test. Conclusion. Tests influence students' perceptions of what constitutes learning. Our findings suggest that this could affect how students prepare for tests and how they monitoring their own learning.     

Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children

The ability to monitor understanding of texts, usually referred to as metacomprehension accuracy, is typically quite poor in adult learners; however, recently interventions have been developed to improve accuracy. In two experiments, we evaluated whether generating delayed keywords prior to judging comprehension improved metacomprehension accuracy for children. For sixth and seventh graders, metacomprehension accuracy was greater when generating keywords. By contrast, for fourth graders, metacomprehension accuracy did not differ across conditions. Improved metacomprehension accuracy led to improved regulation of study. The delayed keyword effect in children reported here is discussed in terms of situation model activation.     

Understanding the delayed-keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy

The typical finding from research on metacomprehension is that accuracy is quite low. However, recent studies have shown robust accuracy improvements when judgments follow certain generation tasks (summarizing or keyword listing) but only when these tasks are performed at a delay rather than immediately after reading (K. W. Thiede & M. C. M. Anderson, 2003; K. W. Thiede, M. C. M. Anderson, & D. Therriault, 2003). The delayed and immediate conditions in these studies confounded the delay between reading and generation tasks with other task lags, including the lag between multiple generation tasks and the lag between generation tasks and judgments. The first 2 experiments disentangle these confounded manipulations and provide clear evidence that the delay between reading and keyword generation is the only lag critical to improving metacomprehension accuracy. The 3rd and 4th experiments show that not all delayed tasks produce improvements and suggest that delayed generative tasks provide necessary diagnostic cues about comprehension for improving metacomprehension accuracy.     

Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study

The shift-to-easier-materials (STEM) effect occurs when individuals adopt a low performance goal and subsequently select to restudy more easier items of a list than the difficult ones. The causes and constraints of the STEM effect were investigated across four experiments in which participants first briefly studied and judged their learning of 30 paired associates. They were then instructed to obtain a low performance goal and were asked to select items for restudy. The STEM effect was present when items were presented for selection simultaneously, but when items were presented for selection sequentially, the participants instead selected the more difficult items. The presence and absence of STEM effects were linked to planning that was triggered by the simultaneous format and to difficulties in executing an appropriate plan under the sequential format, respectively. Moreover, the STEM effect was evident for individuals with high memory spans but not for those with low memory spans. These and other findings highlight the contribution of planning and capacity constraints to the control of study time.