Rereading significantly improves metacomprehension monitoring accuracy relative to reading once (Experiment 1)¶

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 Experiment 1, relative monitoring accuracy was significantly better when participants reread each text than when they read each text once. → 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

Randomized experiment with 75 introductory psychology students (three dropped), reading five explanatory texts with inference verification tests. Relative accuracy was computed as Pearson correlations of judgments with test performances, regressed on condition, ability, and their interaction; the article reports "a main effect of rereading" with the quoted means.

"There was a main effect of rereading, so that monitoring accuracy for the reread condition (M .46, SEM .06) was significantly better than that for the read-once condition (M .22, SEM .10)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading comprehension ability predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading (Experiments 1 and 2) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Neither rereading nor self-explanation changed comprehension test performance itself; effects were specific to monitoring accuracy — related
• Working memory capacity predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading, independently of comprehension ability (Experiment 2) — related
• Rereading Is A Low Utility Study Strategy — reports the opposite
• A self-explanation instruction during rereading improves monitoring accuracy for all readers above mere rereading (Experiment 2) — related
• Five of seven situation-model interventions significantly improved relative metacomprehension accuracy, concept mapping only marginally (p = .097), and self-explaining not significantly — related
• Situation-model-approach interventions produce a medium positive average effect (g = 0.46) on relative metacomprehension accuracy — a broader claim this one bears on
• Generative and visualizing tasks improve metacomprehension and monitoring accuracy but show small or null effects on learning outcomes — related