-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
1/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension
Christina E. van Kraayenoord1
This chapter reviews the literature on the role of metacognition in reading com-
prehension. 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
fieldthose that might be referred to as the classic studies of metacognitionaredescribed. The outcomes of these studies have identified both developmental dif-
ferences 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 monitor-ing 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 arenot described in this chapter (see Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey & Alexander,
2009 for a meta-analysis).
1On 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 amhonoured to be amongst them. He has also been an important professional mentor to meand I thank him for that. His many contributions to the field of psychology and educationare remarkable in their quantity, quality and impact. Finally, I am pleased that I couldcontribute to this Festschrift marking his research and scholarship and presented to him onthe occasion of his 60th birthday. It is a fitting acknowledgement of, and tribute to,
Wolfgangs personal attributes and his professional life.
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
2/28
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 researcherswho have investigated and continue to investigate metacognition and reading
comprehension.
In the fourth part of the chapter the important features and findings of the re-
search are discussed. Common outcomes and differences in the outcomes are iden-
tified. 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 theo-
retical approaches to learning and development from information processing mo-
dels, to Vygotskian, socio-cultural or situated learning models, to socio-critical mo-
delshave 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 ongoingcognitive 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 self-
system (Borkowski, 1992; Borkowski, Day, Saenz, Dietmeyer, Estrada & Grote-
luschen, 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
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
3/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 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 involvesthe readers orchestration of a num-
ber 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 read-
ing comprehension include metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive monitoring
and control. The next sections examine several studies that have investigated theseaspects 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) inter-
viewed 2nd and 6th graders to determine their knowledge about reading. The find-
ings 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 -
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
4/28
280 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
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 inknowledge about person, tasks and strategy variables as a function of age (Clay,
1973; Kuhn, 2000; Lomax & McGee, 1987; Weinert & Schneider, 1999). For ex-
ample, 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 in-
crease 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. Ne-
vertheless 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 metacognitiveknowledge 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 comprehen-
sion 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 me-
tacognitive knowledge and reading. Two other classic studies of metacognitive
knowledge by Garner and her colleagues investigated good and poor reader differ-
ences. 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 under-
stood the text (Garner & Kraus, 1981-1982; Garner & Reis, 1981).
Some studies have investigated aspects of metacognitive knowledge and compre-
hension and self-regulation. Paris and van Kraayenoord (1998) assessed 158 Aus-
tralian 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 metacognitiveawareness 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 comprehen-
sion, 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
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
5/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 281
reading comprehension, and motivation had an indirect effect via decoding and meta-
cognition. This finding was replicated on the same sample four years later (Roeschl-
Heils, Schneider & van Kraayenoord, 2003). It indicates the stability of relationshipsamongst metacognitive knowledge, comprehension and motivation in the absence of
intervention (Baker & Beall, 2009).
Van Kraayenoord, Beinicke, Schlagmller and Schneider (under review) exam-
ined the performance in metacognitive knowledge, motivation, decoding and reading
achievement (that is, reading comprehension) of Grade 3 and 4 German and Austral-
ian students. The results revealed that metacognitive knowledge had the greatest in-
fluence 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 meta-
cognitive knowledge and reading achievement in the German sample, and a strongerrelationship between decoding ability and reading achievement in the Australian
sample. The researchers suggested that the use of different orthographies might ex-
plain 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 meta-
cognitive 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 strong-
ly domain-specific, rather than domain-general, and that the metacognitive knowl-
edge 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 knowl-
edge 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 meta-
cognitive monitoring have found that people of all ages have difficulties accurately
judging their text learning and comprehension (Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009, p.
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
6/28
282 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
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 comprehensionmonitoring 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 gra-
ders 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 ap-
peared to be able to monitor their understanding to a greater extent than the younger
students.
Later studies of comprehension monitoringthis time in readingalso 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 compre-
hension 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 monitoringof 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 comprehend-
sion. Similarly, in the Cain, Oakhill and Bryant (2004) study of 102 7 and 8 year old
students, comprehension monitoring (and inference making) independently contri-
buted 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 de-
tecting 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
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
7/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 283
finding also noted in an earlier study (Yuill, Oakhill & Parkin, 1989). Thus these re-
searchers have consistently shown the difficulties that students have with compre-
hension monitoring and the effects on comprehension, even when other influencesare controlled.
Over the years many hypotheses have been derived about why readers fail to
detect errors and have difficulties with monitoring their comprehension. For exam-
ple, 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 pro-
cessing 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 ofthese factors in combination contribute to younger and poorer readers failure to
monitor their comprehension and to their failure to report on their lack of under-
standing 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 de-
signs 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 under-
stand the text, used fix-up strategies when comprehension broke down. Pressley and
Afflerbach (1995) also reported that good readers employed multiple strategies be-
fore, during and after reading, and often used them in a coordinated manner. These
strategies included predicting upcoming text content before reading, using question-
ning, creating mental images during reading, and summarizing following reading.
Other studies have also noted that poor comprehenders failed to use reading strate-
gies (e.g., Brown, Armbruster & Baker, 1986), while some studies have found that
poor comprehenders have greater difficulty in adjusting strategy use according to textfeatures (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Cesare Cornoldi, an Italian researcher, has led a research group that has under-
taken several studies related to monitoring and control of reading comprehension.
For example, in one longitudinal study, Cornoldi, De Beni, and Pazzaglia (1996) ex-
amined the cognitive and metacognitive profiles of groups of good and poor compre-
henders 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., knowl-
edge of reading goals, strategy use). When looking across the poor comprehenders as
a group the researchers found considerable heterogeneity. Closer inspection of indivi-
dual profiles indicated that failure to comprehend typically implied lower meta-
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
8/28
284 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
cognitive control of reading comprehension, although in some cases poor compre-
hension was related to poor strategy use (or poor listening comprehension). There-
fore, Cornoldi et al. suggested that there were multiple, higher order variables thatwere 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 difficult-
ties 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 meta-cognitive knowledge and control. These more complex metacognitive competencies
included the ability to identify relevant from irrelevant information, to modify read-
ing 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 stu-
dents 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 ad-
dition, 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 us-
ing. In discussing the results the authors pointed to the role of language in devel-
oping the students reading comprehension. They argued that the students under-
standing of language (that is, the talk about text) meant that the students paid in-
creased attention to their use of strategies and increasingly became more self-regu-
lated. (Readers are also directed to reviews of studies of monitoring and control of
reading and reading comprehension in Israel, Block, Bauserman & Kinnucan-Welsch, 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 re-
searchers and authors have argued that these metacognitive processes should be
taught. Therefore, this section reviews some of the literature that has investigated the
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
9/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 285
instruction provided to develop students metacognition and reading comprehension.
Much of this research has focused on the teaching of metacognitive and comprehen-
sion-related strategies and the efficacy of such teaching. The argument for the teach-ing 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 pre-
dicting, 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 in-
struction 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 rele-
vant 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 im-
portant to the development of reading comprehension. However, typically the strate-
gies 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 recov-
ering from disruptions and distractions. Similarly, Pressley (2000, 2002) referred to:
activating background or prior knowledge, making predictions; generating questionsduring reading; constructing mental images that represent the meanings of text;
identifying important information; making links between ideas in the text; summa-
rising; 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 stu-
dents 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-
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
10/28
286 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
hension of expository text. With reference here only to the studies of strategy in-
struction, the meta-analysis found support for the systematic instruction of single
strategies, however, those studies that involved direct instruction of multiple strate-gies indicated larger effect sizes when compared to the single strategy studies. Thus
the instruction of multiple strategies is advocated. However Pressley (2000) cau-
tioned against teaching strings of strategies and instead argued for the teaching of a
small repertoire of strategies. The studies describing the various programs and ap-
proaches 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, andconditional knowledge, while also teaching children how to evaluate, plan and regu-
late 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 stra-
tegies. The teachers and peers provide feedback. In their intervention study, Paris and
Jacobs (1984) found significant correlations between reading awareness and compre-
hension 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 aware-
ness and strategic reading. In another study, Paris, Cross and Lipson (1984) investi-
gated 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 studywere: understanding the purposes of reading, activating background knowledge, allo-
cating 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 com-
prehension strategies by teaching them to be metacognitive about their reading. The
findings indicated that the students who used ISL improved their reading compre-
hension. 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 Okastudy, 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.
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
11/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 287
3.2 Reciprocal Teaching
At the same time as Paris and his colleagues were developing ISL, another group ofresearchers was undertaking research on a different metacognitive approach to read-
ing. Reciprocal Teaching (RT: Palincsar, 1986; Palincsar & Brown, 1984) was de-
signed to foster reading comprehension and to teach students to monitor their com-
prehension. RT consists of the teaching of four strategies that can be used to com-
prehend text predicting, questioning, summarising, and clarifying. Instruction ini-
tially 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 appli-
cation 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 com-
pared 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 ex-
cept 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 improvereading comprehension. For example, in a recent German study, Sprer and Seuring
(2009) undertook an intervention involving RT and cognitive and metacognitive acti-
vities in order to enhance the reading comprehension of 3rd to 6th graders. The re-
searchers 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 peer-
tutored 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 regres-
sion 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 re-
searchers 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 in-
struction of reading comprehension (e.g., Hacker & Tenent, 2002; Le Fevre, Moore
& Wilkinson 2003). In school settings it has been of particular interest to teachers
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
12/28
288 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
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, how-
ever their research suggested that the key instructional component of strategy in-
struction 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 theirstudents who were poor readers (i.e., low reading group). The teachers explicitly dis-
cussed 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 ex-
planation 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 ex-
plicit in their teaching and the students of these teachers improving in their aware-
ness 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 read-ing 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 Trans-
actional 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 ideathat students should develop as flexible strategy users and therefore they should be
taught a variety of strategies to enhance reading comprehension. No specific strate-
gies 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 compre-
hension 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
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
13/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 289
used to develop strategy use. The students then practice the strategies under teacher
guidance and eventually the students use the strategies independently. The transac-
tions occur between teachers and students, students and students, and students andtexts (El-Dinary, 2002).
Several studies of TSI have demonstrated the efficacy of this approach in im-
proving reading comprehension with a variety of readers (Schuder, 1993). For ex-
ample, 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 receiv-
ing 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 stu-
dents 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 them-selves 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 compre-
hension. Across several years studies have indicated that TSI is an efficacious and
valuable approach to improving students reading comprehension and their self-per-
ception 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 distin-
guished 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 textscomprising a variety of genres, participate in hands-on activities, work collabora-
tively, 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 stra-
tegies they have learned in various reading and writing activities. Students build
metacognitive knowledge as they actively choose strategies, monitor their compre-
hension, 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
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
14/28
290 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
classrooms offering science instruction using basal readers. The results indicated that
after prior knowledge had been controlled, students in the CORI classrooms outper-
formed the students in the control classrooms in learning and using the strategies thathad been taught. The CORI students also improved their use of strategies, their con-
ceptual 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 prior-itized in the CORI program. Studies have indicated that the teaching of reading stra-
tegies alongside the promotion of students motivation to read has resulted in i m-
proved comprehension. The studies suggested that the motivational aspects of CORI
added to the strategy instruction in ways that made a difference to student engage-
ment 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 summa-
rize 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 Gradestudents 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 class-
rooms. The results indicated that, when compared to the students in the control class-
rooms, 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 stu-
dents, including 29 with learning disabilities. Students in a control group received
traditional instruction in the same content. The results indicated that the CSR stu-
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
15/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 291
dents made greater gains in comprehension than the students in the control class-
rooms, although only the high and average achieving students improved at statisti-
cally 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 stu-
dents 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 com-
puter 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, Green-
wood, 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 pre-
dictions, oral reading, and comprehension though retelling. In delivering the instruct-
tion the teacher uses a script so that students become familiar with standard pro-cedures. A sequence of instructional steps is always followed. It comprises teacher-
directed 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 groupswere 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 inter-
vention groups benefited from reading the scientific texts embedded within the meta-
cognitive instruction. In particular, those students who received metacognitive in-
struction 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 differen-
ces as a result of the metacognitive instruction associated with before, during or after
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
16/28
292 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
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 significantlyoutperformed 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 indi-
cated 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 re-
flective 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 theresearch literature including in countries outside the United States (see also Rohr-
beck, 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 metacognitiveknowledge 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 difficult-
ties. 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 aparticular text and context. In addition, factors such as motivation and working
memory may mean that students fail to use strategies to regulate their reading com-
prehension.
The studies of metacognitive monitoring and control that have been reviewed here
have demonstrated the great variability in students abilities. With respect to monitor-
ing, the studies have highlighted the progressive nature of the development of moni-
toring 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 in-
cluding students prior knowledge, their perceptions of texts as accurate and co-
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
17/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 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 dis-abilities.
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 flex-
ibly. 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 studentswho 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 strate-
gies might be superior to the teaching of single strategies in developing reading com-
prehension. 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 prac-
tices. These roles and practices appear to be common to most of the programs andapproaches. 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 en-
gage 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 inde-
pendent use of the strategies. (The readers attention is also drawn to reviews of com-
prehension, comprehension monitoring and strategy instruction in Israel & Duffy,
2009 and in McNamara, 2007).
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
18/28
294 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
5 Future Considerations
This review of selected studies of metacognition and reading comprehension pub-lished 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 comprehen-
sion 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 ac-
quired and through which it is changed (Schunk, 1989), while those who haveadopted 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 col-
leagues have viewed metacognition from within a self-system perspective that con-
siders 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 com-
prehension and other studies that have investigated motivational aspects alongside
metacognitive strategy learning suggest that researchers are adopting a multidimen-
sional view of metacognition that allows several cognitive, metacognitive and moti-
vational 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 advocatedthat 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 summa-
rizing (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
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
19/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 295
domain-specific nature of metacognitive knowledge and its relationship to reading
achievement we need to ensure that metacognitive and comprehension-related strate-
gy 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 under-
stand 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 readingachievement between those who are achieving as expected and various other popula-
tions 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 with-
in 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.
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
20/28
296 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
References
Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high schoolstudents.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.), Improvingcomprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 229-242). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, R., Chinn, C., Waggoner, M. & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulatingstory discussions. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching andlearning(pp. 170-186). New York: Guilford Press.
Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in Transactional Strategy Instructionfor teachers of severely reading-disabled adolescents. Teaching and Teacher Education,8, 391-403.
Artelt, C., Schiefele, U. & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. EuropeanJournal 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.), Meta-cognition, 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). NewYork: 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. 373-
388). 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. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educatio-nal Psychologist, 39, 243-253.
Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of think aloud in identification and teaching of readingcomprehension 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: BurosInstitute 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 ofmetacognition. 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.
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
21/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 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 moremysterious 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 LearningSciences, 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-experimentalvalidation 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 skilland 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. Journalof Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42.
Calhoon, M. B., Al Otaiba, S., Cihak, D., King, A. & Avalos, A. (2007). Effects of a peer-mediated 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). Strategyacquisition and transfer among German and American children: Environmental influenceson 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, NewZealand: 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 andintervention (pp. 113-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of childrensmetacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 31-41.
Delquadri, J, Greenwood. C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J. & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwidepeer 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.), Cognitivestrategy research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 133-157). NewYork: 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.
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
22/28
298 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J. & Wessel-man, 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 reasoningassociated 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.), Readingcomprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation (pp. 221-249). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
El-Dinary, P. B. (2002). Challenges of implementing Transactional Strategies Instruction forreading 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.), Thenature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979a). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1979b). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. InF. 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 adaptinstruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 126-
137.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 evidence-
based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research andPractice, 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 EducationalResearch Journal, 34, 174-206.
Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S. & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension ofexpository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 40(3), 210-225.
Garner, R. (1981). Monitoring of passage inconsistency among poor comprehenders: Apreliminary 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 knowingand regulating reading behaviors.Educational Research Quarterly, 6, 5-12.
Garner, R. & Reis, R. (1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: Aninvestigation of spontaneous text look backs among upper-grade good and poorcomprehenders.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.
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
23/28
The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension 299
Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S. & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept-orientedreading 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 learningfrom 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 literacyengagement: 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 comprehen-
sion: 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 professionaldevelopment. 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 throughcomputer-assisted collaborative strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27,235-249.
King, A. & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on childrensknowledge 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.Remedialand 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 notconfusing 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.
-
7/27/2019 The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension.pdf
24/28
300 Christina E. van Kraayenoord
Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Henley, A. M. & Sanders, A. (1994). Increasingstrategic 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. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 44, 218-253.
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading.Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
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 BiennialConference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction,Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. & Haibi, L. (2009). Elementary school children readingscientific texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction. The Journal of EducationalResearch, 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 oftext: 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 readinginstruction. 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 theSymposium Metacognition and Learning at the Biennial Conference of the EuropeanAssociation 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 Nether-
lands: 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 workingmemory 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 awa