High-performing readers use more monitoring strategies while under-performing readers rely more on cognitive strategies like memorization¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Under-performing students reportedly used significantly less monitoring strategies in reading than high performing ones. → Hu 2017
q2 i? Low-WMC readers made fewer metacognitive comments than high-WMC readers when reading to study, but not when reading for entertainment. → Hu 2017 (2)
Evidence¶
Hu 2017¶
Hu, Jingjing; Gao, Xuesong (Andy). (2017). Using think-aloud protocol in self-regulated reading research. Educational Research Review, v.22, pp. 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.004
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review reports, citing Denton et al. (2015), that "under-performing students reportedly used significantly less of monitoring strategies" than high performers, who also increased monitoring over time while low performers decreased it.
"Denton et al. (2015) found that under-performing students reportedly used significantly less of monitoring strategies in reading than high performing ones."
Hu 2017 (2)¶
Hu, Jingjing; Gao, Xuesong (Andy). (2017). Using think-aloud protocol in self-regulated reading research. Educational Research Review, v.22, pp. 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.004
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review reports, citing Linderholm and van den Broek (2002), a working-memory-capacity difference in metacognitive comments that appeared only for study reading, which the authors say confirms the process is context-dependent.
"They found that low-WMC readers made fewer metacognitive comments while reading to study than high-WMC readers did, but the two groups of readers shared similar processes while reading for entertainment."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Metacognition — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
- Self-Regulation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related Claims¶
- A self-explanation instruction during rereading improves monitoring accuracy for all readers above mere rereading (Experiment 2) — related
- Reading comprehension ability predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading (Experiments 1 and 2) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
high-performers-monitor-more-than-low-performers |
title |
High-performing readers use more monitoring strategies while under-performing readers rely more on cognitive strategies like memorization |
description |
High-performing readers use more monitoring strategies while under-performing readers rely more on cognitive strategies like memorization |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — hu-2017, hu-2017-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.