Neither rereading nor self-explanation changed comprehension test performance itself; effects were specific to monitoring accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In both experiments, reading conditions did not differ in mean comprehension test performance, so the monitoring improvements cannot be attributed to performance gains. → Griffin 2008

Evidence¶

Griffin 2008¶

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.93

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In Experiment 1, conditions did not differ in mean performance on any of the tests (all reported tests non-significant); in Experiment 2, performance did not reliably differ between conditions on any test except a marginal effect (p .10) on the RaceIQ text. Mean judgment magnitude also did not reliably differ among conditions in either experiment.

"Neither the rereading nor the self-explanation effects can be attributed to effects on test performance itself, because the groups did not differ in test performance."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading comprehension ability predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading (Experiments 1 and 2) — related
• A self-explanation instruction during rereading improves monitoring accuracy for all readers above mere rereading (Experiment 2) — related
• Rereading significantly improves metacomprehension monitoring accuracy relative to reading once (Experiment 1) — related
• Working memory capacity predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading, independently of comprehension ability (Experiment 2) — related
• Questioning-with-training produced higher posttest scores than read-reread study (Experiment 2) — related
• Diagramming conditions show no significant differences from control in regulation measures or reading comprehension test scores for causal relations — related
• In Studies 1a and 2, instructional visuals produced no significant difference in test performance or in test and explain relative metacomprehension accuracy — related
• Five of seven situation-model interventions significantly improved relative metacomprehension accuracy, concept mapping only marginally (p = .097), and self-explaining not significantly — related
• Rereading is less effective than retrieval practice — related
• Visualizing support—provided diagrams or learner-generated drawings—facilitates higher-quality explanations and better comprehension than explaining text alone — related
• Technology-enhanced adaptive teaching shows no significant effects on monitoring accuracy, subject-specific interest, or self-efficacy — related