The Effect of Summarizing on Meta-Comprehension Accuracy and Regulation Accuracy among Students

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 PhD, Educational Psychology, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D., Educational Psychology, Khwarazmi University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Objective: Meta-comprehension is an important factor in improving students' performance; however, many students have problems in meta-comprehension and regulating their learning.
This study aimed to investigate the effect of summarizing on meta-comprehension accuracy and regulation accuracy in students.
Method: The research method was semi-experimental with a pretest-posttest design with an unequal control group. The statistical population was male students in the sixth grade of Tehran. 36 students were selected by available sampling method and assigned into control and experimental groups, randomly. In the pretest, after studying the text, the participants predicted their score in the exam and identified the paragraphs that need to be read again. Then, an exam was taken from the text to determine the accuracy of their predictions. In the post-test, the procedure was the same, except that the experimental group summarized the text, after studying the text, but the control group only studied the text.
Findings: The results showed that the accuracy of monitoring and regulation in the experimental group was significantly higher than the control group in the post-test (p<0/01).
Conclusion: It seems that presenting diagnostic cues in the form of producing an activity, by engaging the students in the monitoring process, makes realistic students' judgment of their comprehension and improves the regulation process in them.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Anderson, M.C.M., & Thiede, K.W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? Acta Psychologica, 128, 110-118. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.006
Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting Self-Regulated Learning through Prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139-145. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139.
Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Note taking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(2), 145-153. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(79)90069-9.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., de Koning, B. B., Fiorella, L., & Paas, F. (2021). Five Strategies for Optimizing Instructional Materials: Instructor- and Learner-Managed Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1379-1407. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09606-9
Chi, M. T. H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Elicit self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477.
De Bruin, A.B.H., Thiede, K. W., Camp, G., & Redford, J. R. (2011). Generating keywords improves meta-comprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 294e310. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.005.
De Bruin, A.B.H. & van Merriënboer, J. J.G. (2017). Bridging Cognitive Load and Self-Regulated Learning Research: A complementary approach to contemporary issues in educational research. Learning and Instruction, 1-9.
Delvar, A. (2018). Experimental design in psychology and edudation. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian]
Engelen, J. A. A., Camp, G., van de Pol, J. & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2018). Teachers’ monitoring of students’ text comprehension: can students’ keywords and summaries improve teachers’ judgment accuracy? Metacognition and Learning, 13, 287-307. doi:10.1007/s11409-018-9187-4
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9.
Griffin, T., Mielicki, M., & Wiley, J. (2019). Improving students’ meta-comprehension accuracy. In J. Dunlosky & K. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 619-646). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K.W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on meta-comprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93-103. Doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.93.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294-303. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.4.294.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring One's Own Knowledge during Study: A Cue-Utilization Approach to Judgments of Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349-370.
Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 837-852. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6.
Mohebzadeh, M., Nikdel, F., & Taghvaieenia, A. (2021).Comparison of the Effectiveness of Cooperative and Metacognition Teaching Methods on Motivational Beliefs and Self-Regulated Learning among Students. Biquarterly Journal of Cognitive Strategies in Learning, 9(17), 123-148. DOI: 10.22084/J.PSYCHOGY.2021.23098.2257 [In Persian]
Omarchevska, Y., Lachner, A., Richter, J., & Scheiter, K. (2022). Do Video Modeling and Metacognitive Prompts Improve Self‑Regulated Scientific Inquiry? Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1025-1061. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09652-3.
Pieger, E., & Bannert, M. (2018). Differential Effects of Students’ Self-Directed Metacognitive Prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 165-173. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.022.
Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves meta-comprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22, 262-270. DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.007
Salehi, M. (2014). Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of cognitive training on academic performance. Biquarterly Journal of Cognitive Strategies in Learning, 1(1), 75-86. [In Persian].
Schleinschok, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control during learning from text?, Learning and Instruction, 51, 10-25. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.02.002.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve meta-comprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 129-160.
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66-73.
Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2010). Poor meta-comprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47, 331-362. doi:10.1080/01638530902959927.
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). London: Routledge.
Van de Pol, J., de Bruin, A. B., van Loon, M. H., & van Gog, T. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ monitoring and regulation of students’ text comprehension: Effects of comprehension cue availability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 236-249. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.001.
Van de Pol, J., Van Loon, M., Van Gog, T., Braumann, S. & De Bruin, A. (2020). Mapping and Drawing to Improve Students’ and Teachers’ Monitoring and Regulation of Students’ Learning from Text: Current Findings and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 951-977. doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09560-y.
Van Loon, M., de Bruin, A. B.H., Leppink, A. J., & Roebers, C. (2017). Why are children overconfident? Developmental differences in the implementation of accessibility cues when judging concept learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 158, 77-94.
Van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica, 151, 143–154. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.007.
Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & de Bruin, A.B.H. (2019). Cue-based facilitation of self-regulated learning: A discussion of multidisciplinary innovations and technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 384-391.
Wiley, J., Thiede, K. W., & Griffin, T. D. (2016). Improving meta-comprehension with the situation-model approach. In K. Mokhtari (Ed.), Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading instruction for first and second language readers (pp. 93–110). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Zahed, S., Dortaj, F., Asadzadeh, H., Kadivar, P., & Farrokhi, N. (2021).The Effect of Metacognitive and Emotional Prompts on the Monitoring Accuracy, Regulation Accuracy and Types of Cognitive Load in Students. Studies in Learning & Instruction, 13(1), 141-162. Doi: 10.22099/JSLI.2021.6317 [In Persian]
 
Biquarterly Journal of Cognitive Strategies in Learning
Volume 11, Issue 20
Spring & Summer 2023
July 2023
Pages 143-161

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics