IES Funded Research on Metacomprehension

Principal Investigators:
Thomas D. Griffin, UIC
Keith W. Thiede, Boise State
Jennifer Wiley, UIC

Overview:
What is metacomprehension? Metacomprehension is the ability to be able to accurately monitor your comprehension or understanding from a text. Many readers experience Illusions of Understanding and are unable to predict how well they will do on tests of their comprehension. However, being able to accurately track your own comprehension of topics is critical for engaging in effective self-regulated study and learning. Metacomprehension skills are important for helping readers to learn effectvely from text. The overarching goal of this series of research projects funded by the Institute for Education Sciences has been to empirically test methods of improving metacomprehension accuracy as an important foundation for improving students' self-regulation skills that govern studying behavior.

Many models of self-regulated learning describe learning as an interaction between metacognitive monitoring and control -- also called regulation of study (e.g., Griffin, Wiley, & Salas, 2013; Nelson & Narens, 1990; Thiede & Dunlosky, 1999; Winne & Butler, 1997).  For instance, consider a student preparing for an upcoming exam.  As the student studies, she monitors her progress toward the goal of mastering the material for each topic.  If her monitoring indicates that she has mastered a topic, she will likely fail to restudy it. If a person is not able to accurately differentiate well-learned material from less-learned material, he or she could waste time studying material that is already well learned or worse, fail to restudy material that has not yet been adequately learned.  Therefore, it is important to find ways to improve the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring so that students can effectively study on their own.

One emphasis in this work is on helping students to be able to accurately monitor their comprehension or understanding while learning from text, and not just their ability to recall it (Wiley, Griffin, & Thiede, 2005). This work has demonstrated the effectiveness of a number of specific interventions that can lead to improved levels of metacomprehension accuracy.

See Wiley, Thiede, and Griffin (2016) for a discussion of how all of these interventions are based in a situation-model approach, and Griffin, Mielicki and Wiley (2019) for an overview of research on improving metacomprehension accuracy.

1. Generating Keywords for Texts after a Delay.
This has been called the "Delayed Keyword Effect". Engaging in keyword generation after a delay helps readers to reflect accurately on their understanding of texts. Keyword generation without a delay is not as effective. The delay between reading a text and generating keywords is critical for improving metacomprehension accuracy.
Thiede, Anderson & Therriault, 2003
Thiede, Dunlosky, Griffin & Wiley, 2005
de Bruin, Thiede, Camp, & Redford, 2011
Thiede, Redford, Wiley & Griffin, 2017

2. Encouraging Students to Self-explain Texts.
Re-reading or generating summaries can improve metacomprehension accuracy under some conditions, but self-explanation tasks are a more robust intervention.
Griffin, Wiley & Thiede, 2008
Thiede, Griffin, Wiley & Anderson, 2010
Wiley, Griffin, Jaeger, Jarosz, Cushen, & Thiede, 2016
Griffin, Wiley & Thiede, 2019
Guerrero, Griffin, & Wiley, 2020
Guerrero, Griffin, & Wiley, 2022

3. Concept Mapping while Reading.
Teaching students to create concept maps of expository texts improves their metacomprehension accuracy.
Thiede, Griffin, Wiley, & Anderson, 2010
Redford, Thiede, Wiley & Griffin, 2011

4. Lessons about "Comprehension" (What Understanding a Text Means, What Kinds of Test Items to Expect).
Clarifying the goals for reading can also improve metacomprehension accuracy. Using several approaches we have tried to help readers have a better understanding of how to read for understanding, and what kinds of test items to expect by providing readers with clear reading goals, and giving them practice test items and inference test expectancies. We have found improved metacomprehension accuracy as a result of combinations of comprehension-focussed reading instructions, provding practice test items and inference test expectancies, and prompting readers to engage in explanation tasks.
Thiede, Wiley & Griffin, 2011
Thiede, Redford, Wiley & Griffin, 2012
Wiley, Griffin, Jaeger, Jarosz, Cushen, & Thiede, 2016
Wiley, Jaeger, Taylor, & Griffin, 2018
And improved exam scores for underprepared students
Griffin, Guerrero, Mielicki, & Wiley, 2020

See Wiley, Thiede, and Griffin (2016) for a discussion of how all of these interventions are based in the situation-model approach, and Griffin, Mielicki and Wiley (2019) for a recent overview of research on improving metacomprehension accuracy.

Publications from IES Projects and Related Work:

Thiede, K. W., Dunlosky, J., Griffin, T. D., & Wiley, J. (2005). Understanding the delayed keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1267-1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1267

Jee, B., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2006). Expertise and the illusion of comprehension. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0d99k1dn

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93-103. DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.1.93

Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). To understand your understanding one must understand what understanding means. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. https://escholarship.org/content/qt4xb0r6jw/qt4xb0r6jw.pdf

Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds). Handbook of metacognition in education, pp. 85-106. Routledge.

Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1001-13. doi:10.3758/MC.37.7.1001

Wiley, J., & Sanchez, C.A. (2010). Constraints on learning from expository science texts. In N.L. Stein & S. Raudenbush (Eds.), Developmental cognitive science goes to school (pp. 45-58). Routledge Education: New York, NY.

Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47, 331-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959927

Wiley, J., Ash, I.K., Sanchez, C.A., & Jaeger, A. (2011). Clarifying readers goals for learning from expository science texts. In M. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 353-374). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

de Bruin, A. B., Thiede, K. W., Camp, G., & Redford, J. (2011). Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 294-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.005

Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D.(2011). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning & Instruction, 22, 262-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.007

Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 264-273. DOI:10.1348/135910710X510494

Thiede, K. W., Redford, J. S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Elementary school experience with comprehension testing may influence metacomprehension accuracy among 7th and 8th graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 554-564. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028660

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Salas, C. (2013). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.) International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 19-34). Springer Science.

Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning & Instruction, 34, 58-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.002

Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2015). Reading an analogy can cause the illusion of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 52, 376-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1026679

Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., Jaeger, A. J., Jarosz, A. F., Cushen, P.J., & Thiede, K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 393-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000096

Wiley, J., Thiede, K. W., & Griffin, T. D. (2016). Improving metacomprehension with the situation-model approach. In Mokhtari,K., (Ed). Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading instruction for first and second language readers (pp. 93-110). Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Thiede, K. W., Redford, J. S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2017). How restudy decisions affect overall comprehension for 7th grade students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 590-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12166

Wiley, J., Sarmento, D., Griffin, T. D., & Hinze, S. R. (2017). Biology textbook graphics and their impact on expectations of understanding. Discourse Processes, 54, 463-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1319655

Wiley, J., Jaeger, A. J., Taylor, A. R., & Griffin, T. D. (2018). When analogies harm: The effects of analogies and valid cues on the metacomprehension of science text. Learning & Instruction, 55, 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.001

Griffin, T. D., Mielicki, M. K., & Wiley, J. (2019). Improving students' metacomprehension accuracy. In J. Dunlosky & K. Rawson (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 619-646). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2019). The effects of comprehension-test expectancies on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45 (6), 1066-1092. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000634

Wiley, J. (2019). Picture this! Effects of photographs, diagrams, animations, and sketching on learning and beliefs about learning from a geoscience text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3495

Griffin, T. D., Guerrero, T., Mielicki, M. K., & Wiley, J. (2020). Improving metacomprehension and exam grades of students at-risk for failure via explanation and inference-test instruction. Paper available in the Online Paper Repository for the 2020 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA. https://doi.org/10.3102/1575485
Poster available at: https://aera20-aera.ipostersessions.com/?s=58-69-48-55-C3-00-15-28-02-56-BE-E6-27-13-DA-81

Guerrero, T., Griffin, T. D., & Wiley, J. (2020). Generating explanations is more helpful than practice testing alone for improving comprehension and metacomprehension. Paper available in the Online Paper Repository for the 2020 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA. https://doi.org/10.3102/1578055
Poster available at: https://aera20-aera.ipostersessions.com/?s=66-A3-1B-71-C8-DA-13-9D-F5-0E-7C-49-F0-5D-D0-7F

Guerrero, T. A., & Wiley J. (2021). Expecting to teach affects learning during study of expository texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(7), 1281-1303. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000657

Guerrero, T. A., Griffin, T. D., & Wiley, J. (2022). I think I was wrong: The effect of making experimental predictions on learning about theories from psychology textbook excerpts. Metacognition & Learning, 17(2), 337-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09276-6

Wiley, J., Guerrero, T.A., Hildenbrand, L., & Griffin, T. D. (2022). Exploring the boundaries: When explanation activities do not improve comprehension. Paper available in the Preprint Repository for the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse (No. 9587). EasyChair. https://easychair.org/publications/preprint/2VXd