The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension PDF

The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension
Christina E. van Kraayenoord1
This chapter reviews the literature on the role of metacognition in reading comprehension. In the first two parts of the chapter, studies that have examined metacognitive knowledge, and metacognitive monitoring and control in relation to reading comprehension are described. Specifically, the most important studies to the field those that might be referred to as the classic studies of metacognition are described. The outcomes of these studies have identified both developmental differences and differences amongst good and poor comprehenders. No reference is made to studies involving judgments-of-learning linked to memory monitoring, as distinct from comprehension monitoring, as these studies will be addressed in other chapters of this book. Some studies that have investigated metacognitive knowledge of memory strategies alongside reading comprehension are reported, but again it is anticipated that most of the studies of metacognitive knowledge about memory will be discussed in other chapters. In the third part of the chapter studies involving the instruction of metacognitive and comprehension-related strategies are reviewed. These studies have been conducted to enhance students reading comprehension, and comprehension monitoring and control, and/or are studies that have examined the efficacy of metacognitive and comprehension-related strategy instruction. This part of the review refers to studies involving a range of students including those with learning disabilities. Considerable attention is paid to particular programs and approaches because of their influence on contemporary classroom instruction. Due to page number constraints instructional studies that focus on peer-led (compared to teacher-led) classroom discussion approaches in teaching comprehension and strategies for monitoring and control of comprehension are not discussed (e.g., Almasi, 2002; Anderson, Chinn, Waggoner & Nguyen, 1998; Echevarria, 1995; McKeown, Beck & Blake, 2009; Raphael, Gavelek & Daniels, 1998). Furthermore, while a few of the studies using these approaches have examined the effects of discussion on metacognition, they are not described in this chapter (see Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey & Alexander, 2009 for a meta-analysis).
1
On a personal note it is a privilege to have known Wolfgang Schneider for over 25 years. Throughout his career Wolfgang has worked with a wide array of colleagues and I am honoured to be amongst them. He has also been an important professional mentor to me and I thank him for that. His many contributions to the field of psychology and education are remarkable in their quantity, quality and impact. Finally, I am pleased that I could contribute to this Festschrift marking his research and scholarship and presented to him on the occasion of his 60th birthday. It is a fitting acknowledgement of, and tribute to, Wolfgangs personal attributes and his professional life.
278
Christina E. van Kraayenoord
The review has also attempted to be inclusive of an international perspective by referring to recent research from Italy, Israel, Australia, and Great Britain, as well as Germany. These studies provide an indication of the global community of researchers who have investigated and continue to investigate metacognition and reading comprehension. In the fourth part of the chapter the important features and findings of the research are discussed. Common outcomes and differences in the outcomes are identified. The chapter concludes by raising four issues that warrant attention in the field of metacognition and reading comprehension. Reference is made to possible future research studies and to the need to develop effective and responsive instruction in reading comprehension for all students.
1 Metacognition
John Favell (1976, 1979a, b) and Ann Brown (1978) undertook the earliest work on metacognition in the 1970s. Their theoretical and empirical research provided understandings about learners reflective processes and gave insights into the ways in which individuals knowledge about their cognition impacted on their self-regulation in various aspects of development and learning. Since that time many different theoretical approaches to learning and development from information processing models, to Vygotskian, socio-cultural or situated learning models, to socio-critical models have influenced the way in which metacognition and reading comprehension have been investigated (e.g., the Good Strategy User Model proposed in Pressley, Borkowski & Schneider, 1987, 1989; Zimmermans Self-Regulation Model, 1990). Despite the various theoretical perspectives, from these earliest times, a common understanding of metacognition is that it is comprised of two major components: knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. An individuals knowledge about cognition is referred to as metacognitive knowledge. Flavell (1979b) argued that metacognitive knowledge consists of knowledge of self, knowledge of aspects of the task, and knowledge of strategy use. Self-regulation refers to the actions used to achieve an individuals goals in learning and the acquisition of expertise in a domain. It comprises both metacognitive monitoring and control. Metacognitive monitoring refers to the assessment or evaluation of the ongoing or current state of a particular cognitive activity, while metacognitive control refers to the regulation of ongoing cognitive activity (Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009). The self-regulation component of metacognition involves cognitive activities such as planning, checking, evaluating and testing and revising strategies. Pressley, Forrest-Pressley, Elliott-Faust and Miller (1985) have argued metacognitive knowledge is potentially conscious and controllable (p. 4). In the theoretical literature, metacognition has also been associated with the selfsystem (Borkowski, 1992; Borkowski, Day, Saenz, Dietmeyer, Estrada & Groteluschen, 1992), which incorporates a number of motivational and affective aspects of cognition. Many theories and models of metacognition suggest that the application of knowledge about one's own cognitive processes and the regulation of these processes
279
279
are highly influenced by ones motivations, goals, perceptions of ability, attributions, and beliefs, as well as the context, such as social and cultural norms (Borkowski, Carr & Pressley, 1987; Borkowski, et al., 1992; Paris & Winograd, 1990a; Schunk, 1989). Brown (1978, 1987) also linked metacognition to the executive that predicts, checks, monitors, reality tests, coordinates, and controls deliberate attempts to learn, study, and solve problems. The constraints on the length of this chapter prevent further detailed discussion of the aspects of motivation, context and the executive, nevertheless these factors are very important in obtaining a full understanding of metacognition as they constitute influences on metacognition as well as being influenced by metacognition (see Borkowski, Chan & Muthukrishna, 2000; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Zimmerman, 2002).
2 Metacognition and Reading Comprehension

Much of the research on metacognition has been related to learning and achievement in reading. Research in the fields of psychology and education point to the active and strategic nature of reading (Paris, Lipson & Wixson, 1983; Pressley, 2002; Schneider & Pressley, 1997). Self-regulated readers are actively involved in cognitive and metacognitive activities before, during and after reading (Paris, Wasik & Turner, 1991). They engage in constructively responsive reading which involves reading with a purpose and actively constructing meanings from text (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). The goal of constructing meanings or comprehension lies at the heart of reading. Consistent with the active and strategic notions of reading, reading comprehension is a complex and multifaceted ability that involves the readers orchestration of a number of skills and strategies when thoughtfully and critically interacting with written text. The knowledge, experiences and purpose of the reader, the content and features of the text, and the situation or context of reading influence reading comprehension. Specifically, reading comprehension is both the process and product of the ideas represented in the text linked to the readers prior knowledge and experiences and the mental representation in memory of the text (Kintsch, 1998). As might be anticipated from the definition of metacognition, the metacognitive processes involved in reading comprehension include metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive monitoring and control. The next sections examine several studies that have investigated these aspects of metacognition in reading comprehension over the past decades. 2.1 Metacognitive Knowledge and Reading Comprehension In one of the first studies of metacognitive knowledge, Myers and Paris (1978) interviewed 2nd and 6th graders to determine their knowledge about reading. The findings indicated that 2nd graders were not sensitive to task dimensions (p. 688) and viewed reading as a process of decoding rather than as a process of comprehending. In addition these younger readers did not recognize the need to invoke special stra-
280
tegies for different materials and goals and they reported few strategies or reasons for checking their own understanding (p. 688). Such differences in younger and older readers have been found in many subsequent studies, with improvements in knowledge about person, tasks and strategy variables as a function of age (Clay, 1973; Kuhn, 2000; Lomax & McGee, 1987; Weinert & Schneider, 1999). For example, Lomax and McGee (1987) examined the awareness of different aspects of reading in children from 3 to 7 years of age. The researchers found a significant increase in metacognitive awareness in children between the ages of three and four years which is a time when many children may be exposed to print and books. Nevertheless many children will still lack print awareness when they arrive at school. For example, Clay (1973) noted the lack of print awareness and awareness of the purposes of print in beginning readers, who failed to understand that the print, and not the pictures, told the story. Comparisons of good and poor readers also revealed differences in metacognitive knowledge about reading and comprehension. For example, the Myers and Paris study (1978) found that when 6th Grade good and poor readers were compared, the poor comprehenders had less knowledge about different monitoring and comprehension strategies. Paris and Jacobs (1984) also found that knowledge about the purpose of reading and knowledge about the information provided by different features of the text were related to students comprehension abilities. Specifically, in comparison to good comprehenders, they found that poor comprehenders were less able to identify a meaning-related purpose for reading and were less able explain the information embedded in text features. In the 1980s Garner (1981, 1987) also undertook important studies related to metacognitive knowledge and reading. Two other classic studies of metacognitive knowledge by Garner and her colleagues investigated good and poor reader differences. These researchers found that poor readers were less knowledgeable than good readers about reading and poor readers often failed to realize that they had not understood the text (Garner & Kraus, 1981-1982; Garner & Reis, 1981). Some studies have investigated aspects of metacognitive knowledge and comprehension and self-regulation. Paris and van Kraayenoord (1998) assessed 158 Australian students, who were in Years 1 to 4, on a variety of measures of metacognitive awareness and use of strategies, reading comprehension, and the construction of meaning while listening (K-Grade 1) or reading (2nd and 3rd Grade). The children were then assessed again two years later. The results indicted that metacognitive awareness correlated with the students age and reading comprehension in Years 3 and 4. After two years metacognitive awareness correlated with teachers ratings of the Year 1 and 2 students reading comprehension and motivation, while for the Year 3 and 4 students metacognitive awareness also correlated with reading comprehension, teachers ratings and metacognitive awareness scores from two years earlier. In a study of German students in Grades 3 and 4, van Kraayenoord and Schneider (1999) examined the roles of declarative metamemory, reading self-concept, and interest in reading on reading achievement (specifically, comprehension and teacher ratings of reading). Significant correlations between metacognitive and motivational variables were found, and both these sets of variables correlated with decoding and comprehension. Causal modelling indicated that metacognition had a direct effect on
281
281
reading comprehension, and motivation had an indirect effect via decoding and metacognition. This finding was replicated on the same sample four years later (RoeschlHeils, Schneider & van Kraayenoord, 2003). It indicates the stability of relationships amongst metacognitive knowledge, comprehension and motivation in the absence of intervention (Baker & Beall, 2009). Van Kraayenoord, Beinicke, Schlagmller and Schneider (under review) examined the performance in metacognitive knowledge, motivation, decoding and reading achievement (that is, reading comprehension) of Grade 3 and 4 German and Australian students. The results revealed that metacognitive knowledge had the greatest influence on reading achievement in the German sample, while decoding had the greatest influence on reading achievement in the Australian sample. When the data were modelled, the main differences amongst the variables in relationship to reading achievement in the two samples concerned a stronger relationship between metacognitive knowledge and reading achievement in the German sample, and a stronger relationship between decoding ability and reading achievement in the Australian sample. The researchers suggested that the use of different orthographies might explain the findings. Artelt, Schiefele and Schneider (2001) investigated several variables thought to predict reading comprehension amongst secondary school students. In their study involving 600 German high school students, structural equation modelling was used to examine the contribution of the amount of reading, word reading and metacognitive strategy knowledge on text comprehension. Artelt, et al. found that all three factors had significant independent effects on comprehension, leading the authors to support conceptualizations of reading comprehension as involving multiple variables with metacognitive strategy knowledge as a salient factor. In another German study, Neuenhaus, Lingel, Schneider and Artelt (2009) investigated if and to what extent the metacognitive knowledge of fifth graders is a domain-specific or a domain-general construct. They also examined the relationship between aspects of metacognitive knowledge about text comprehension, English and Mathematics and achievement in subject domains of English, Mathematics and English as a foreign language (EFL). The results indicated that metacognitive knowledge of these fifth graders was strongly domain-specific, rather than domain-general, and that the metacognitive knowledge was also related to achievement in the particular domains. In the next section studies of the monitoring and control aspects are described. 2.2 Metacognitive Monitoring and Control and Reading Comprehension Metacognitive monitoring of comprehension or metacomprehension involves the evaluation of text to determine that its content is consistent with ones prior knowledge of a topic or domain (Schneider & Krkel, 1989) and of ones expectations of the way language operates. Most studies of metacognitive monitoring have used the error detection paradigm. Studies examining developmental differences in metacognitive monitoring have found that people of all ages have difficulties accurately judging their text learning and comprehension (Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009, p.
282
218), however, overall, younger readers have been found to be less able to monitor their comprehension of text than older readers. One of the first examples of age/grade-related differences in comprehension monitoring is found in the pioneering work of Markman (1977). Markmans research on comprehension monitoring examined students abilities to detect inconsistencies and errors in verbal instructions. For example, Markman (1977) found that 3rd graders were more proficient at detecting omissions in a set of verbal instructions than 1st graders. Markman (1979) also investigated 3rd and 6th graders awareness of comprehension failure in listening. The study found about 40 to 50 percent of the students did not notice the explicit inconsistencies in the material and almost 100 percent of the students were oblivious to the implicit inconsistencies. No significant difference was found between the 3rd and 6th graders. However, when the students were pre-warned that there were inconsistencies in the verbal material then the 6th graders, but not the 3rd graders, detected a greater number of inconsistencies. Thus, after the provision of a prompt or cue related to the errors, the older students appeared to be able to monitor their understanding to a greater extent than the younger students. Later studies of comprehension monitoring this time in reading also found that readers were relatively poor at judging their own levels of comprehension (Baker, 1985; Cavanaugh & Perlmutter, 1982; Pressley & Ghatala, 1990). For example, Baker (1985) found that beginning readers failed to monitor their comprehension, omitted words, and guessed or made up interpretations of text, rather than re-reading and fixing-up comprehension difficulties. There have been many other studies across the decades that have examined students abilities to monitor their comprehension and/or to detect and resolve errors and anomalies in text (August, Flavell & Clift, 1984; Brown, Armbruster & Baker, 1986; Ehrlich, 1996; Flavell, 1979b; Garner, 1981; Paris & Myers, 1981; Paris & Winograd, 1990b; Zabrucky & Moore, 1989). Consistently, age and ability differences have been noted. Specifically, younger readers and poorer readers failed to monitor their comprehension or failed to report their lack of understanding of the text. One group of researchers that has undertaken systematic research into the causal links between comprehension monitoring (and other variables) and reading comprehension has been led by British researchers, Cain and Oakhill (Cain & Oakhill, 1996; Cain, Oakhill & Bryant, 2004; Oakhill & Cain, 2003, Yuill & Oakhill, 1991). In one of their studies Oakhill, Cain and Bryant (2003) assessed comprehension monitoring of students at 7 and 8 years of age and then again when they were 8 and 9 years old. These researchers found that metacognitive monitoring, text integration, and working memory accounted for a significant portion of the variance in reading comprehendsion. Similarly, in the Cain, Oakhill and Bryant (2004) study of 102 7 and 8 year old students, comprehension monitoring (and inference making) independently contributed unique variance to comprehension after removing the effects of decoding, language, and working memory. Furthermore, in another study, Oakhill, Hartt and Samols (2005) reported good comprehenders displayed greater proficiency in detecting anomalies across paragraphs, after vocabulary and decoding differences had been controlled. Important in this study was the finding that these difficulties were more pronounced when the anomalous pieces of information were nonadjacent a
283
283
finding also noted in an earlier study (Yuill, Oakhill & Parkin, 1989). Thus these researchers have consistently shown the difficulties that students have with comprehension monitoring and the effects on comprehension, even when other influences are controlled. Over the years many hypotheses have been derived about why readers fail to detect errors and have difficulties with monitoring their comprehension. For example, in explaining her 1985 study findings related to why readers did not report the inconsistencies or errors, Baker suggested that these readers believed that the texts were accurate, organised and coherent, and furthermore these readers did not wish to admit to their difficulties with comprehension. In addition, other authors (e.g., Johnston & Afflerbach, 1985; McKoon & Ratcliff, 1992) have suggested that the lack of comprehension monitoring may be due to readers focus on low levels of processing of text such as on decoding the words or operating at the sentence level, rather than at the text level. However, it is argued here that it is likely that many of these factors in combination contribute to younger and poorer readers failure to monitor their comprehension and to their failure to report on their lack of understanding of text. With respect to investigations of metacognitive control of reading comprehension researchers have examined the strategies that readers use before, during and after reading. Again amongst these studies using age and good/poor reader comparison designs are common. For example, Baker and Brown (1984) studied good and poor 4th and 6th Grade readers strategy use. They found that the good readers were aware of when they did or did not comprehend the text. The poor readers were less aware of the importance of meaning in comprehending text and focused on decoding to the detriment of comprehension. These authors also found that the good readers used a number of metacognitive strategies during reading that assisted them to comprehend. For example, the good readers, who were aware when they did and did not understand the text, used fix-up strategies when comprehension broke down. Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) also reported that good readers employed multiple strategies before, during and after reading, and often used them in a coordinated manner. These strategies included predicting upcoming text content before reading, using questionning, creating mental images during reading, and summarizing following reading. Other studies have also noted that poor comprehenders failed to use reading strategies (e.g., Brown, Armbruster & Baker, 1986), while some studies have found that poor comprehenders have greater difficulty in adjusting strategy use according to text features (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Cesare Cornoldi, an Italian researcher, has led a research group that has undertaken several studies related to monitoring and control of reading comprehension. For example, in one longitudinal study, Cornoldi, De Beni, and Pazzaglia (1996) examined the cognitive and metacognitive profiles of groups of good and poor comprehenders in the Italian school system. The researchers compared performance on learning measures (e.g., reading comprehension), cognitive measures (e.g., working memory) and metacognitive abilities related to reading comprehension (e.g., knowledge of reading goals, strategy use). When looking across the poor comprehenders as a group the researchers found considerable heterogeneity. Closer inspection of individual profiles indicated that failure to comprehend typically implied lower meta-
284
cognitive control of reading comprehension, although in some cases poor comprehension was related to poor strategy use (or poor listening comprehension). Therefore, Cornoldi et al. suggested that there were multiple, higher order variables that were prerequisites to and facilitators of reading comprehension. They suggested that poor performance on cognitive and metacognitive tasks could lead to poor reading comprehension, and conversely poor reading comprehension could lead to difficultties in cognitive and metacognitive abilities. In a more recent study from researchers in the same group, Meneghetti, Carretti and De Beni (2006) investigated the role of various abilities related to reading comprehension. In their study of 184 Italian students from 9 to 13 years of age they found that two latent factors, involving basic and complex abilities, best accounted for reading comprehension performance from three models that were tested. The basic abilities included identification of main and secondary characters of a text and the temporal and causal structure of a text, while the more complex abilities included those that referred to aspects of metacognitive knowledge and control. These more complex metacognitive competencies included the ability to identify relevant from irrelevant information, to modify reading strategies according to the different text types, and to recognize words that were incongruent with text meaning. The researchers argued that the latter aspects of reading comprehension structure the abilities of the mental model representation that involve active constructive processing, elaboration or efforts to understand (p. 299). Finally, a more recent study conducted over a full school year documented students metacognitive knowledge, strategy use and comprehension based on students talk, interviews, analyses of their oral reading and their retellings. This study by Kragler and Martin (2009) found that the six low, average and above-average 1st Grade readers all used a large range of different strategies to understand text. In addition, in this sample, strategy use was not affected by reading level, that is, all of the readers used strategies regardless of reading ability. The findings also indicated that the actual strategy use was more pervasive than five of the six students reported using. In discussing the results the authors pointed to the role of language in developing the students reading comprehension. They argued that the students understanding of language (that is, the talk about text) meant that the students paid increased attention to their use of strategies and increasingly became more self-regulated. (Readers are also directed to reviews of studies of monitoring and control of reading and reading comprehension in Israel, Block, Bauserman & KinnucanWelsch, 2005.)
3 The Instruction of Metacognitive and Comprehension-Related Strategies

In order to improve the metacognitive knowledge, monitoring and control of all readers and so create active, strategic and proficient comprehenders, many researchers and authors have argued that these metacognitive processes should be taught. Therefore, this section reviews some of the literature that has investigated the
285
285
instruction provided to develop students metacognition and reading comprehension. Much of this research has focused on the teaching of metacognitive and comprehension-related strategies and the efficacy of such teaching. The argument for the teaching of strategies suggests that readers metacognitive knowledge is associated with their schema and prior knowledge (Pressley, Borkowski & Schneider, 1987). This, in turn, is related to their comprehension monitoring (Paris, Lipson & Wixson) and to the use of comprehension strategies (Carr, Kurtz, Schneider, Turner & Borkowski, 1989; Pressley, Borkowski & Schneider, 1987), which in turn is associated with comprehension. Many researchers have advocated for the teaching of strategies (e.g., Baker; 2002; Paris, Wasik & Turner, 1991; Pressley, 2000; Pressley, Forrest-Pressley, Elliott-Faust & Miller, 1985). In addition several recent research reports published in the United States have called for increased teaching of key cognitive strategies such as predicting, questioning, summarizing and clarifying (National Reading Panel, 2000; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Snow, Burns &Griffin, 1998). These reports and other documents synthesize the considerable empirical research evidence that supports the instruction of strategies and that indicates that such instruction improves reading comprehension (Bereiter & Bird, 1985; Cross & Paris, 1988; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; King & Rosenshine, 1993; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Paris & Oka, 1986). While some of this evidence suggests that strategy instruction enhances the reading comprehension of both good and poor readers, as is shown below, this is not always the case and there is trend now amongst researchers to argue that metacognitive and comprehension-related strategy instruction may be more relevant to and effective with those struggling with reading. An examination of research syntheses and studies of instructional programs and approaches demonstrates that many different strategies have been suggested as important to the development of reading comprehension. However, typically the strategies are ones that aim to foster, monitor and/or retain comprehension and learning from text. For example, Brown (1980) referred to strategies such as: clarifying the purposes of reading; identifying the important elements of the message; focussing on the main content; monitoring ongoing activities to determine whether comprehension is occurring; reviewing and self-questioning to determine whether goals are being achieved; making corrections when comprehension failures are detected; and recovering from disruptions and distractions. Similarly, Pressley (2000, 2002) referred to: activating background or prior knowledge, making predictions; generating questions during reading; constructing mental images that represent the meanings of text; identifying important information; making links between ideas in the text; summarising; monitoring understanding; and fixing up difficulties when they occur. The research has indicated, however, that the focus of instruction should not be on single or individual strategies but on the teaching of multiple strategies so that students build up a repertoire of strategies and that they learn to use the ones that are most appropriate to the comprehension situation (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston & Echevarria, 1998). Indeed, in a recent meta-analysis, Gajria, Jitendra, Sood and Sacks (2007) examined instructional studies that involved the teaching of students with learning disabilities in the use of content enhancement, or single cognitive and multiple cognitive strategies and their effect on the compre-
286
hension of expository text. With reference here only to the studies of strategy instruction, the meta-analysis found support for the systematic instruction of single strategies, however, those studies that involved direct instruction of multiple strategies indicated larger effect sizes when compared to the single strategy studies. Thus the instruction of multiple strategies is advocated. However Pressley (2000) cautioned against teaching strings of strategies and instead argued for the teaching of a small repertoire of strategies. The studies describing the various programs and approaches follow. 3.1 Informed Strategies for Learning Informed Strategies Instruction (ISL: Paris, Cross & Lipson, 1984; Paris & Jacobs, 1984) was designed to stimulate greater awareness of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge, while also teaching children how to evaluate, plan and regulate their own comprehension in strategic ways (Cross & Paris, 1988, p. 133). The instructional component of ISL involves modelling the strategies and discussion of the reasons for their use, guided practice and independent implementation of the strategies. The teachers and peers provide feedback. In their intervention study, Paris and Jacobs (1984) found significant correlations between reading awareness and comprehension for both 3rd and 5th graders, with the students in the ISL group improving more than the control group from pre-to post test on assessments of reading awareness and strategic reading. In another study, Paris, Cross and Lipson (1984) investigated 3rd and 5th graders change in awareness of strategies and the value of using strategies as a result of ISL. The specific strategies taught as part of ISL in this study were: understanding the purposes of reading, activating background knowledge, allocating attention to the main ideas, evaluating critically, monitoring comprehension and making inferences. In a control group-designed study, performance gains were larger on cloze and error detection tasks for the ISL group. Thus ISL was effective in enhancing metacognitive knowledge and improving the comprehension monitoring of these students. Paris and Oka (1986) also investigated readers use of reading comprehension strategies by teaching them to be metacognitive about their reading. The findings indicated that the students who used ISL improved their reading comprehension. Interestingly, readers at all skill levels were assisted by the intervention. Finally, Cross and Paris (1988), in another study of 3rd and 5th graders, also used ISL to teach comprehension strategies. However in contrast to the Paris and Oka study, this study did not find that ISL had a significant effect on all readers. Instead the researchers found that ISL had the greatest impact on the poor readers in the study. From these studies of ISL it is clear to see that the focus on the declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge aspects about reading and on the teaching of relevant strategies increased students reading comprehension and was particularly valuable in assisting poor readers to improve their comprehension.
287
287
3.2 Reciprocal Teaching At the same time as Paris and his colleagues were developing ISL, another group of researchers was undertaking research on a different metacognitive approach to reading. Reciprocal Teaching (RT: Palincsar, 1986; Palincsar & Brown, 1984) was designed to foster reading comprehension and to teach students to monitor their comprehension. RT consists of the teaching of four strategies that can be used to comprehend text predicting, questioning, summarising, and clarifying. Instruction initially involves teacher explanation and modelling of the strategies. Then together the teacher and students create a discussion about how, when and why these strategies should be used. Over time the teacher guides and supports the students in the application of the strategies and gradually passes over more responsibility to them with the students acting as the teacher as they develop the ability to perform the strategies on their own. One of the most well known studies of RT is Palincsar and Brown (1984) that comprised two investigations. In the first, involving 7th graders, the teacher initially discussed the four strategies and showed how they should be used. Then, working in peer teaching groups, the students learned how to use the strategies until independence. The comprehension performance of this group was then compared to the performances of another intervention group and two non-intervention groups. The study demonstrated positive effects for the students involved in RT on strategy use and in comprehension. The second investigation replicated the first except it was undertaken in a regular classroom setting using the students usual reading groups. As with the first investigation students in the RT group outperformed the other students. Researchers in many other countries have also examined the use of RT to improve reading comprehension. For example, in a recent German study, Sprer and Seuring (2009) undertook an intervention involving RT and cognitive and metacognitive activities in order to enhance the reading comprehension of 3rd to 6th graders. The researchers also examined which strategies mediated the intervention effects on the comprehension. The students were first taught the RT strategies of summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. Then they practiced the strategies in peertutored pairs (RT pairs), in small groups (RT groups) or in instructor-guided groups (without RT). The results indicated that students who practiced in RT small groups outperformed students in the instructor-guided groups and the traditional instruction groups as assessed on a standardized reading comprehension measure. The regression analyses indicated that summarizing was the only strategy that had a significant effect on change in reading comprehension. As a consequence of their findings the researchers suggested that the use of multiple strategies of RT is valuable in teaching comprehension, as is the use of small groups in metacognitive instruction. The efficacy of RT has been demonstrated in a meta-analysis of 10 RT studies that resulted in a mean effect size of .71 (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Many other researchers have gone on to employ RT in interventions with various types of learners and today it is one of the one of the most often cited approaches to strategy instruction of reading comprehension (e.g., Hacker & Tenent, 2002; Le Fevre, Moore & Wilkinson 2003). In school settings it has been of particular interest to teachers
288
working with middle and secondary school students and is sometimes combined with other approaches such as direct explanation of strategies (e.g., Alfassi, 2004). 3.3 The Direct Explanation of Strategies Duffy and his colleagues did not label their approach with a particular name, however their research suggested that the key instructional component of strategy instruction should be the direct explanation of strategies (Duffy, 2002; Duffy & Roehler, 1989; Duffy, Roehler & Herrmann, 1988). Duffys research has been very influential in the field of strategy instruction and indeed the direct explanation of strategies has become a major component of many approaches to the teaching of strategies. Two of Duffys earliest studies illustrate the use of direct explanation and point to its effectiveness. Duffy et al. (1986) involved 5th Grade teachers and their students who were poor readers (i.e., low reading group). The teachers explicitly discussed the cognitive processes and strategies involved in comprehension with their students, focusing on the specific strategies to be learned as well as why they were important, and how and when they should be used. In a similar study by Duffy et al. (1987), 3rd Grade teachers and their students who were poor readers were involved. In both studies the teachers who were provided with training in the use of direct explanation were compared with a no training control group. The results of both studies indicated the effectiveness of the training, with the trained teachers being more explicit in their teaching and the students of these teachers improving in their awareness of the need for strategy use and in their metacognitive awareness of strategies. Students in the 1987 study also performed better than the control students when reading achievement was assessed at post-test and at follow-up after five months. The research of Duffy and his colleagues demonstrated the power of using direct explanation of strategies in teaching students to become better comprehenders. The value of direct explanation has been picked up in the approach known as Transactional Strategies Instruction. 3.4 Transactional Strategies Instruction Transactional Strategies Instruction (TSI: Pressley, 2002; Pressley et al. 1992; Schuder, 1993; Symons, Snyder, Cariglia-Bull & Pressley, 1989) promotes the idea that students should develop as flexible strategy users and therefore they should be taught a variety of strategies to enhance reading comprehension. No specific strategies have been endorsed in TSI, but the TSI research has involved teaching students to make links with prior knowledge, make and confirm predictions, summarize, and re-read as they work to understand and interpret texts. Massey (2009) has pointed out though sharing some commonalities with RT, the researchers differentiated TSI from RT in several ways, including the use of more direct explanation of comprehension strategies, longer times given for instruction and introducing new strategies, and more focus on motivation of students (p. 396). In TSI the teacher works with students at the whole class level and in small groups. Strategies are directly explained and modelled with classroom dialogue being
289
289
used to develop strategy use. The students then practice the strategies under teacher guidance and eventually the students use the strategies independently. The transactions occur between teachers and students, students and students, and students and texts (El-Dinary, 2002). Several studies of TSI have demonstrated the efficacy of this approach in improving reading comprehension with a variety of readers (Schuder, 1993). For example, Collins (1991) found that Grade 5 and 6 students who had received TSI showed more significant improvement from pre- to post-test than students not receiving the instruction. In another study, Anderson (1992) found poor achieving students in Grades 6 to 11 who received TSI made greater gains in comprehension than students in classrooms in which TSI had not been taught. Studies using this approach have also demonstrated large effects on comprehension (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter & Schuder, 1996). The research has also demonstrated that TSI not only positively influenced comprehension but also influenced students overall perceptions of themselves as readers (Casteel, Isom & Jordan, 2000). These studies have indicated that TSI helps students transact with text, the teacher and their peers. It focuses on the metacognitive processes of comprehension by direct explanation, modelling and coaching by the teacher before the students gradually assume responsibility for the teaching and begin to monitor and control their comprehension. Across several years studies have indicated that TSI is an efficacious and valuable approach to improving students reading comprehension and their self-perception as readers. 3.5 Concept Orientated Reading Instruction Concept Orientated Reading Instruction (CORI: Guthrie, Anderson, Alao & Rinehart, 1999; Guthrie et al., 1996; Guthrie, Wigfield & Perencevich, 2004) can be distinguished from the other programs and approaches reviewed here in that it has a very strong focus on motivation and very deliberately combines strategy instruction and motivational aspects of learning in a specific content domain. Operating in classroom contexts of science learning CORI focuses on developing engaged reading. It is concerned with the teaching of reading strategies, scientific concepts, inquiry skills, and the development of intrinsic motivation in reading. Specifically, CORI promotes instruction that includes opportunities for the students to: engage with real-world topics to achieve content goals, read frequently on topics of their interest, use texts comprising a variety of genres, participate in hands-on activities, work collaboratively, and choose amongst activities and texts. The strategy instruction focuses on the activation of prior knowledge, questioning, seeking information, summarizing, and displaying information graphically (Guthrie et al., 1999; Guthrie et al., 2004). The students work in small groups and as individuals as they apply the multiple strategies they have learned in various reading and writing activities. Students build metacognitive knowledge as they actively choose strategies, monitor their comprehension, and integrate information (Baker & Beall, 2009). In a study that examined the efficacy of CORI, Guthrie et al. (1998) compared four 3rd and 5th Grade classrooms that had been exposed to CORI instruction with
290
classrooms offering science instruction using basal readers. The results indicated that after prior knowledge had been controlled, students in the CORI classrooms outperformed the students in the control classrooms in learning and using the strategies that had been taught. The CORI students also improved their use of strategies, their conceptual learning in science and the transfer of this learning. To determine whether or not motivation was an essential part of CORI, Guthrie et al. (2004) undertook two studies. The outcomes of these studies showed that when performance in reading comprehension, cognitive strategies and motivation were compared between students who had been exposed to CORI and those who had received only Strategy Instruction (that is, no motivational component), the former groups scored higher than the Strategy Instruction-only groups on all measures. Thus the researchers have argued that the motivational aspect of learning is a necessary and essential part of CORI. Engagement in reading and learning in science through self-regulation is prioritized in the CORI program. Studies have indicated that the teaching of reading strategies alongside the promotion of students motivation to read has resulted in improved comprehension. The studies suggested that the motivational aspects of CORI added to the strategy instruction in ways that made a difference to student engagement and hence to reading comprehension. 3.6 Collaborative Strategic Reading Vaughn and Klingner and colleagues (CSR: Kim, Vaughn, Klingner, Woodruff, Reutebuch & Kouzekanani, 2006; Klingner, Vaughn & Schumm, 1998; Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes & Leftwich, 2004) developed Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) to teach multiple comprehension strategies alongside collaborative learning. Based on the RT paradigm, in CSR students learn to preview the text (i.e., preview), monitor comprehension and use fix up strategies (i.e., click and clunk), identify the main ideas by restating them (i.e., get the gist), and summarize the text (i.e., wrap up). First, the teacher conducts instruction of the strategies at the whole class level and then small group settings are used as students apply the strategies to their texts. Using the structure from collaborative learning each student in the group is assigned a particular role and then takes it in turn to teach one of the strategies. Over time each student learns to teach and apply each strategy. In Klingner, Vaughn and Schumm (1998) researchers taught CSR to 4th Grade students using a social studies text. These students achievement was compared to the achievement of students in two control classrooms, where the students had been offered traditional lessons using the same text. Researchers also taught these classrooms. The results indicated that, when compared to the students in the control classrooms, students in the CSR classrooms improved in comprehension, but they did not improve in content knowledge, where equal improvement was shown. Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes and Leftwich (2004) taught 10 classroom teachers in CSR. These teachers taught the CSR strategies to their 4th Grade students, including 29 with learning disabilities. Students in a control group received traditional instruction in the same content. The results indicated that the CSR stu-
291
291
dents made greater gains in comprehension than the students in the control classrooms, although only the high and average achieving students improved at statistically significant levels. Finally, in a recent study Kim, Vaughn, Klingner, Woodruff, Reutebuch and Kouzekanani (2006) investigated the efficacy of Computer-Assisted Collaborative Strategic Reading (CACSR) with middle school students with learning disabilities. Students who used CACSR improved their reading comprehension more than students who used CSR, although gains on a comprehension test were modest. The results of these studies demonstrate the value of CSR in enhancing students reading comprehension and comprehension monitoring of expository texts. The computer program CASR also shows promise in improving comprehension. 3.7 Peer Assisted Learning Strategies In Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS: Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes & Simmons, 1997; Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, Henley & Sanders, 1994) student pairs, using verbally presented material, worked together on various activities to address issues such as comprehension. As a version of Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT: Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta & Hall, 1986; Greenwood, Delquadri & Hall, 1989), PALS focuses on developing students decoding and comprehension. The decoding-focused component of PALS concentrates on the development of sounds and words, while the comprehension component, known as story sharing, focuses on the making of predictions, oral reading, and comprehension though retelling. In delivering the instructtion the teacher uses a script so that students become familiar with standard procedures. A sequence of instructional steps is always followed. It comprises teacherdirected modelling of the code-focused activities, then student practice of these activities, followed by pair or partner work involving the story reading. The student pairs alternate roles as coach and reader. Much of the efficacy research on PALS has been conducted with students with learning disabilities (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, l998; Fuchs, Fuchs & Burish, 2000), however it has also been shown to be effective with other students, such as with English Language Learners (Calhoon, Al Otaiba, Cihak, King & Avalos, 2007; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes & Simmons, 1997). In a study, conducted in Israel, Michalsky, Mevarech and Haibi (2009) provided three groups of Grade 4 students with PALS metacognitive instruction. The groups were offered strategy instruction before, or during, or after reading science texts. A control group did not receive an intervention. The results indicated that all the intervention groups benefited from reading the scientific texts embedded within the metacognitive instruction. In particular, those students who received metacognitive instruction after reading the scientific texts performed better on domain-specific knowledge, scientific reading, and metacognitive awareness measures. In a related study Mevarech and Michalsky (2009) examined the effects of different kinds of metacognitive instruction (PALS) on scientific reading of the higher and lower achieving students in the 2009 sample. The analyses showed no significant differences as a result of the metacognitive instruction associated with before, during or after
292
reading of scientific texts for the higher achievers, however the lower achievers who received metacognitive instruction in the after reading condition significantly outperformed their peers in the before reading condition, who in turn significantly outperformed those in the during reading condition. The students who received no metacognitive instruction achieved the lowest mean scores. The researchers also demonstrated that the higher and lower achievers used different strategies and attended to different aspects of the scientific texts. Specifically the researchers indicated that the higher achievers focused on comprehending the scientific phenomenon and on making links between the phenomena described in the texts and their previous knowledge, while the lower achievers mainly focused on inquiry strategies and reflective processes. These studies of PALS demonstrate its value in various contexts and with different groups of learners. Its use of modelling of strategies, peer-work, and its focus on both decoding and comprehension mean that it has received considerable attention in the research literature including in countries outside the United States (see also Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo & Miller, 2003 for a meta-analytic review.)
4 Discussion of the Reviewed Research

To this point, this chapter has documented some of the most important and classic studies related to metacognition and reading comprehension, as well as some of the more recent studies from countries such as Italy, Israel, and Australia. While this chapter provides a selective review, the studies have indicated how metacognitive knowledge about reading and reading comprehension changes with age and ability. Thus, it is clear that with development students become more aware of their own thinking about themselves, the tasks and the strategies that are useful for reading and that good comprehenders are more aware than poor comprehenders. The research has also indicated that metacognitive knowledge is likely to be domain-specific, in that students may have metacognitive knowledge in one particular area, but not in another. Students may also be aware of several aspects of metacognitive knowledge, but not be able to report them. There may be a number of reasons for these difficultties. For example, language abilities may prevent some children from articulating what they know. With respect to knowledge about strategies, it may also be the case that students know of them, but may not know when to use them, especially in a particular text and context. In addition, factors such as motivation and working memory may mean that students fail to use strategies to regulate their reading comprehension. The studies of metacognitive monitoring and control that have been reviewed here have demonstrated the great variability in students abilities. With respect to monitoring, the studies have highlighted the progressive nature of the development of monitoring and the use of strategies to understand text. Differences in good and poor readers monitoring of reading comprehension were also apparent in a number of these studies. They indicated that monitoring is influenced by a host of factors including students prior knowledge, their perceptions of texts as accurate and co -
293
293
herent, their knowledge of language, their reluctance to admit to comprehension problems, and a propensity to view reading as a decoding activity, especially in young readers, those with difficulties in comprehension, and those with learning disabilities. Age and ability differences were also found in the studies of control strategies. Not all studies of the control aspects of reading comprehension were consistent in their findings, but there was an overall consensus across the studies that good readers had multiple strategies at their disposal and that these were accessed and used flexibly. In contrast, poor readers had difficulties in adjusting strategies according to the text, had less control of the strategies, and used the strategies less well when reading text. This review has also revealed that extensive research has been undertaken to teach students to associate their metacognitive knowledge with particular monitoring and control aspects of comprehension. Such studies are based on the view that students who are aware of their individual cognitive strengths and weaknesses are better at the regulation necessary for text comprehension (Sperling, Howard, Staley & Dubois, 2004). The summary has also highlighted the considerable number of programs and approaches that have demonstrated that reading comprehension can be improved by teaching students to use metacognitive and comprehension-related strategies. These studies have revealed that instruction in the strategies themselves and in their use is highly effective at improving comprehension. There is evidence that such instruction is efficacious for all readers, although some research has found that it may be more effective for students who are struggling with reading for example, those who are poor comprehenders or have learning disabilities. While a great many strategies have been advocated, the most commonly taught strategies that have strong empirical support are: making predictions, questioning, summarizing and clarifying. While there is considerable evidence regarding the value of teaching individual strategies, it is also clear that the teaching of multiple strategies might be superior to the teaching of single strategies in developing reading comprehension. It is suggested that instruction in multiple strategies allows students to develop a repertoire that they can then learn to use flexibly according to the text type, task, and context. The studies reviewed here also indicated that teachers and students have specific roles in the instruction of strategies and that they engage in several essential practices. These roles and practices appear to be common to most of the programs and approaches. Specifically, the teacher provides explicit explanation, demonstrates the strategies, and provides reasons related to when, where, how, and why the strategies should be used. Following the teacher explanation and modelling, the students engage in roles that involve discussion and the practice of the strategies. The students often work in small groups and/or pairs. As the students practice the strategies, their learning is scaffolded through the provision of frequent feedback from either the teacher and/or their peers. Gradually over time the students move towards the independent use of the strategies. (The readers attention is also drawn to reviews of comprehension, comprehension monitoring and strategy instruction in Israel & Duffy, 2009 and in McNamara, 2007).
294
5 Future Considerations
This review of selected studies of metacognition and reading comprehension published over more than three decades has indicated that the role of metacognition in reading comprehension is an important one and what we know about this role has made a valuable contribution to our knowledge about teaching reading comprehension in classrooms. However, there are several areas that deserve attention in future studies of metacognition and reading comprehension and in light of societys goal for all citizens to be literate. First, there is the issue of our understanding of metacognition. Our understanding or definition of metacognition influences the elements one investigates and how one studies metacognition. Researchers who have used a socio-cognitive/socio-cultural view have emphasised the social and cultural contexts in which metacognition is acquired and through which it is changed (Schunk, 1989), while those who have adopted a self-regulated learning perspective have focused more on the changes in the deliberate and strategic control aspects of metacognition (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002). Furthermore, as indicated earlier, researchers such as Borkowski and colleagues have viewed metacognition from within a self-system perspective that considers metacognition alongside cognitive and motivational elements of the learning activity (Borkowski, Chan & Muthukrishna, 2000). The existence of studies reported in this chapter that have taken a self-system view of metacognition and reading comprehension and other studies that have investigated motivational aspects alongside metacognitive strategy learning suggest that researchers are adopting a multidimensional view of metacognition that allows several cognitive, metacognitive and motivational variables to be investigated in combination (see Baker & Beall, 2009). Future studies of the contributions of different cognitive, metacognitive and motivational factors and reading comprehension would be most useful in developing richer and more complex understandings of what students need to know to become proficient, strategic and engaged comprehenders of text. Second, this review reveals that we have considerable knowledge about what should be taught in relationship to metacognition and reading comprehension in classrooms, as well as how students should be taught. Alongside the development of conceptual knowledge, vocabulary, phonological awareness, decoding and the like, students need to be taught strategies that will assist with the monitoring and control aspects of comprehension. Indeed, as indicated earlier, Pressley (2000) has advocated that teachers should assist students in building a small repertoire of strategies. From the research we also have information about the strategies that students use when interacting with text that are the most salient for comprehension, such as summarizing (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). In heeding this call to help learners create a small repertoire of strategies, future research needs to confirm which (few) strategies should be taught and in what combinations. Third, the investigations of programs and approaches have also revealed that metacognitive and comprehension-related strategy instruction must be combined with effective teaching practices. Repeatedly the literature has indicated that effective practices include direct explanation, collaborative discussions, modelling, and the scaffolding of practice via feedback. Furthermore given the findings related to the
295
295
domain-specific nature of metacognitive knowledge and its relationship to reading achievement we need to ensure that metacognitive and comprehension-related strategy instruction is embedded within specific curricula or discipline areas. However, there are still matters related to instruction that require further research. For example, it is still not clear exactly what it is about metacognitive and comprehension-related strategy instruction that improves reading comprehension. In drawing on Ann Browns (1992) original use and advocacy of design experiments it is suggested that this methodology would allow researchers, including teacher-researchers, to understand how, when, and why particular pedagogical practices work in classrooms in which metacognitive and comprehension-related strategies are taught (Bell, 2004). Fourth, the research evidence has indicated that increased attention in classrooms to instruction in metacognitive knowledge, monitoring and control leads to improved reading comprehension. However, such instruction in schools does not necessarily lead to more equitable outcomes for all students. The performance gap in reading achievement between those who are achieving as expected and various other populations of students such as those living in poverty, second language learners, those with learning disabilities and disabilities, and those who are disengaged from reading means that these groups of students may well require different metacognitive and comprehension-related instruction. In order to promote more equitable and socially just outcomes our research questions related to these groups might be: how should the instruction for these students vary so that it is more responsive to their individual needs and what types of studies are needed to allow this research question to be addressed? In addition it is suggested that closing the reading achievement gap involves not only closer calibration of teachers instruction to students needs but also ensuring that appropriate and effective systemic and infrastructure responses are in place within school jurisdictions. These responses include enhanced professional development and increased teacher access to high quality materials and resources. Furthermore, there is a pressing need to address long-standing issues related to the lack of access and availability of educational opportunities and resources for many of these groups of students, to tackle the issues of discrimination and prejudice, and to breakdown the social, cultural, linguistic and economic barriers to educational achievement in our communities.
6 Concluding Comment
In moving the field forward to improve the reading comprehension of all students we can draw on and build on the strong legacy of research on the role of metacognition in reading comprehension that has been reviewed in this chapter. There is also much that researchers and educators can do now and in the future. The challenges are there and the next steps are for us to take.
296
References Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 171-184. Almasi, J. F. (2002). Research-based comprehension practices that create higher-level discussions. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 229242). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Anderson, R., Chinn, C., Waggoner, M. & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 170-186). New York: Guilford Press. Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in Transactional Strategy Instruction for teachers of severely reading-disabled adolescents. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 391-403. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U. & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 363-384. August, D. L., Flavell, J. H. & Clift, R. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 39-54. Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we dont understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. McKinnon & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition and human performance (pp. 155-206). New York: Academic Press. Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 77-95). New York: Guilford Press. Baker, L. & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373388). New York: Routledge. Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353394). New York: Longman. Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39, 243-253. Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of think aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-156. Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognition theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 253-257. Borkowski, J., Carr, M. & Pressley, M. (1987). Spontaneous strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11, 61-75. Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S. & Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (p. 42) Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska. Borkowski, J. G., Day, J. D., Saenz, D., Dietmeyer, D., Estrada, T. M. & Groteluschen, A. (1992). Expanding the boundaries of cognitive interventions. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 1-21). New York: Springer. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce & W.
297
297
F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-479). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178. Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B. B. & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P. & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37. Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. (1996). The nature of the relationship between comprehension skill and the ability to tell a story. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 187-201. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Childrens reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42. Calhoon, M. B., Al Otaiba, S., Cihak, D., King, A. & Avalos, A. (2007). Effects of a peermediated program on reading skill acquisition for two bilingual first-grade classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 169-184. Carr, M., Kurtz, B. E., Schneider, W., Turner, L. A. & Borkowski, J. G. (1989). Strategy acquisition and transfer among German and American children: Environmental influences on metacognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 25, 765-771. Casteel, C. P., Isom, B. A. & Jordan, K. F. (2000). Creating confident and competent readers: Transactional strategies instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 67-74. Cavanaugh, J. C. & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: A critical examination. Child Development, 53, 11-28. Clay, M. M. (1973). Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Books. Collins, C. (1991). Reading instruction that increases thinking abilities. Journal of Reading, 34, 510-516. Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R. & Pazzaglia, F. (1996). Reading comprehension profiles. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 113-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of childrens metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 3141. Delquadri, J, Greenwood. C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J. & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwide peer tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52, 535-542. Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28-41). New York: Guilford Press. Duffy, G. G. & Roehler, L. R. (1989). Why strategy instruction is so difficult and what we need to do about it. In C. B. McCormick, G. E. Miller & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 133-157). New York: Springer. Duffy, G. D., Roehler, L. R. & Herrmann, B. A. (1988). Modeling mental processes helps poor readers become strategic readers. The Reading Teacher, 4, 762-767.
298
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J. & Wesselman, R. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 237-252). Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Ratcliff, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J. & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368. Dunlosky, J. & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Echevarria, J. (1995). Interactive reading instruction: A comparison of proximal and distal effects of Instructional Conversations. Exceptional Children, 61, 536-552. Ehrlich, M. F. (1996). Metacognitive monitoring in the processing of anaphoric devices in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. In C. Cornoldi & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation (pp. 221-249). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. El-Dinary, P. B. (2002). Challenges of implementing Transactional Strategies Instruction for reading comprehension. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction (pp. 201-215). New York: Guilford Press. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Flavell, J. H. (1979a). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911. Flavell, J. H. (1979b). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (l998). Researchers and teachers working together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 126137. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Promoting word recognition, fluency, and comprehension in young children. Journal of Special Education, 39, 34-44. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S. & Burish, P. (2000). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: An evidencebased practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 85-91. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G. & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206. Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S. & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (3), 210-225. Garner, R. (1981). Monitoring of passage inconsistency among poor comprehenders: A preliminary test of the piecemeal processing explanation. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 159-162. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Garner, R. & Kraus, C. (1981-1982). Good and poor comprehender differences in knowing and regulating reading behaviors. Educational Research Quarterly, 6, 5-12. Garner, R. & Reis, R. (1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: An investigation of spontaneous text look backs among upper-grade good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569-582. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C. & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383.
299
299
Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S. & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept-oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. Elementary School Journal, 99, 343-366. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G., Alao, S., Anderson, E. & McCann, A. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 261-278. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., Rice, M. E., Faibisch, F. M., Hunt, B. & Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306-332. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A. & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hacker, D. J. & Tenent, A. (2002) Implementing Reciprocal Teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 699-718. Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K. L. & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (Eds.). (2005). Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Israel, S. E. & Duffy, G. G. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York: Routledge. Johnston, P. & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The process of constructing main ideas from text. Cognition and Instruction, 2 (3&4), 207-232. Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., Woodruff, A., Reutebuch, C. & Kouzekanani, K. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students with disabilities through computer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 235-249. King, A. & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on childrens knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127-148. Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T. & Leftwich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: Real-world lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291-302. Klingner, J., Vaughn, S. & Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3-22. Kragler, S. & Martin, L. (2009). I tried to make it not confusing by fixing it: describing six first graders use of strategies to understand text. Reading Psychology, 30, 512-538. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178-181. Le Fevre, D. M., Moore, D. W. & Wilkinson, I. A. G, (2003). Tape-assisted reciprocal teaching: Cognitive bootstrapping for poor decoders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 37-59. Lomax, R. G. & McGee, L. M. (1987). Young childrens concept about print and reading: Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 237-255. Markman, E. (1977). Realizing that you dont understand: A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 48, 986-992. Markman, E. (1979). Realizing that you dont understand: Elementary school childrens awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655. Massey, D. D. (2009). Self-regulated comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research in reading comprehension (pp. 389-399). New York: Routledge.
300
Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Henley, A. M. & Sanders, A. (1994). Increasing strategic reading practice with Peabody Classwide Peer Tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 44-48. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L. & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218-253. McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440466. McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions and technologies. New York: Erlbaum. Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B. & De Beni, R. (2006). Components of reading comprehension and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 291-301. Mevarech, Z. & Michalsky, T. (2009, August). Who benefits from meta-cognitive instruction and under what conditions? Findings based on quantitative and qualitative methods. Paper presented as part of the Symposium Metacognition and Learning at the Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. & Haibi, L. (2009). Elementary school children reading scientific texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 363-374. Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N. & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740-764. Myers, M. & Paris, S. G. (1978). Childrens metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neuenhaus, N., Lingel, K., Schneider, W. & Artelt. C. (2009, August). Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: General or domain-specific? Paper presented as part of the Symposium Metacognition and Learning at the Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Oakhill, J. V. & Cain, K. (2003). The development of comprehension skills. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of childrens literacy (pp. 155-180). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K. & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443-468. 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. Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 2, 73-98. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R. & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve childrens reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76, 1239-1252. Paris, S. G. & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for childrens reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083- 2093.
301
301
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. & Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316. Paris, S. G. & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5-22. Paris, S. G. & Oka, E. R. (1986). Childrens reading strategies, metacognition, and motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56. Paris, S. G. & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (1998). Assessing young childrens literacy strategies and development. In S. Paris & H. Wellman (Eds.), Global prospects for education: Development, culture, and school (pp. 193-227). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A. & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609-640). New York: Longman. Paris, S. G. & Winograd, P. (1990a). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 7-15. Paris, S. G. & Winograd, P. (1990b). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pintrich, P. R. & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249-284). San Diego: Academic Press. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. II1, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 11-27). New York: Guilford Press. Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G. & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annals of Child Development (Vol. 5, pp. 89-129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G. & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What is it and what education can do to promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857-867. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J. & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 513-555. Pressley, M., Forrest-Pressley, D. L, Elliott-Faust, D. & Miller, R. (1985). Childrens use of cognitive strategies: How to teach strategies and what to do if they cant be taught. In M. Pressley & J. C. Brainerd (Eds.), Cognitive learning and memory in children: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 1-47). New York: Springer. Pressley, M. & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19-33. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampton, J. & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-and fifth- grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159-194. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002) Reading for understanding: toward and R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
302
Raphael, T. E., Gavelek, J. R. & Daniels, V. (1998). Developing students talk about text: An initial analysis of a fifth-grade classroom. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 116-128. Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W. & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading literacy, metacognition, and motivation: A follow-up study of German students in Grades 7 and 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 75-86. Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240-257. Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530. Schneider, W. & Krkel, J. (1989). The knowledge base and text recall: Evidence from a short-term longitudinal study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 382-393. Schneider, W. & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between 2 and 20. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schuder, T. (1993). The genesis of transactional strategies instruction in a reading program for at-risk students. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 183-200. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social-cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice (pp. 83-110), New York: Springer. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. H., Staley, R. & Dubois, N. F. (2004). Metacognition and selfregulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(4), 117-139. Sprer, N. & Seuring, V. (2009, August). Fostering reading comprehension through cognitive and metacognitive activities. Paper presented as part of the Symposium Metacognition and Learning at the Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., Cariglia-Bull, T. & Pressley, M. (1989). Why be optimistic about cognitive strategy instruction? In C. B. McCormick, G. E. Miller & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 3-32). New York: Springer. van Kraayenoord, C. E., Beinicke, A., Schlagmller, M. & Schneider, W. (under review) Metacognitive knowledge, motivation, decoding and reading achievement: A GermanAustralian comparison. van Kraayenoord, C. E. & Schneider, W. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: A study of German students in Grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology, 14, 305-324. Weinert, F. E. & Schneider, W. (1999). Individual development from 3 to 12. Findings from the Munich Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yuill, N. & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yuill, N., Oakhill, J. & Parkin, A. J. (1989). Working memory, comprehension skill and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 351-361. Zabrucky, K. & Moore, D. (1989). Childrens ability to use three standards to evaluate their comprehension of text. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 336-352. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173-201. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory Into Practice, 41 (2), 65-70.
Teil IV: Diagnostik und Frderung
Auch dieser abschlieende Inhaltsbereich ist thematisch der Pdagogischen Psychologie zuzuordnen, aber im Unterschied zum vorigen noch strker anwendungsbezogen. Im Beitrag von Ruth Schumann-Hengsteler (mit Dietmar Grube, Christof Zoelch, Claudia Mhler, Katja Seitz-Stein, Inga Schmid, Julia Gronauer und Marcus Hasselhorn) wird ein Testinventar zur Erfassung der Leistungsfhigkeit der Subsysteme des Arbeitsgedchtsnisses nach dem Modell von Baddeley beschrieben. Die beiden Beitrge von Gerhard Bttner (mit Andreas Gold und Marcus Hasselhorn) sowie von Kristin Krajewski und Marco Ennemoser lassen sich dem Thema Frderung zuordnen. Whrend Bttner et al. auf die Verbesserung der Gedchtnisleistungen selbst abzielen, arbeiten Krajewski und Ennemoser Manahmen heraus, durch die Defizite im Arbeitsgedchtnis bei der Gestaltung von Frdermanahmen und auch im normalen Unterricht bercksichtigt werden knnen.

The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension

Christina E. van Kraayenoord1

Christina E. van Kraayenoord