NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Back to results
ERIC Number: ED648571
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2022
Pages: 189
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: 979-8-3526-0000-9
ISSN: N/A
EISSN: N/A
Avoiding Miscomprehension: A Metacognitive Perspective for How Readers Identify and Overcome Comprehension Failure
Kole Andreas Norberg
ProQuest LLC, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Successful reading comprehension is not a guarantee, even for highly skilled readers. When comprehension fails, the ability of the reader to recognize the failure may be critical to avoiding "mis"comprehension (i.e., false confidence in an inaccurate text representation) and to taking steps to improve comprehension. Generally, people learn the most when they study partially-learned, as opposed to well-learned or completely-unlearned, content (i.e., "Region of Proximal Learning;" Metcalfe & Kornell, 2003). However, this requires the learner both to identify the difficulty level of the material (monitor learning) and to select the proximal material (control). Across two experiments, the current study assessed the interactive effects of monitoring and control in a reading context. Experiment 1a confirmed that readers do make greater gains when reading material of a moderate difficulty level, but Experiments 1b and 1c suggested that poor monitoring is not the reason that readers do not always select this material; rather, readers intentionally selected the hardest material. Although monitoring accuracy was not predictive of reader selections, readers were overconfident in their comprehension across Experiments. Experiment 2 tested the use of an ease-of-process heuristic during comprehension monitoring. Readers were especially "over"confident in their comprehension when a text "seemed" easier to process, in part because they were less likely to attend to difficulties (unfamiliar words) in the text. Texts that "feel" simpler engender shallower processing, which can lead to overconfidence in comprehension. Thus, readers struggle with both comprehension monitoring and metacognitive control, but whereas errors in monitoring appear to be based on incompatibility of the text with the applied heuristic, errors in control may be rooted in the reader's beliefs about learning. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml
Publication Type: Dissertations/Theses - Doctoral Dissertations
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A