A self-explanation instruction during rereading improves monitoring accuracy for all readers above mere rereading (Experiment 2)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Self-explanation reliably improved relative monitoring accuracy over rereading, and the benefit did not interact with comprehension ability or WMC. → Griffin 2008 q3 i? Rereading alone did not significantly improve accuracy over reading once in Experiment 2. → Griffin 2008 (2)

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

Experiment 2 assigned 94 introductory psychology students to read-once, reread, or self-explanation conditions. In the stepwise regression (Table 3), the explain-vs-rereading predictor was significant; the article reports the self-explain condition reached an uncommonly high accuracy of .63, and the effect did not interact with ability (R2 .01) or WMC (R2 .00).

"However, self-explanation reliably improved accuracy (M .63, SEM .07) over rereading. Neither comprehension ability nor WMC had an overall relationship with accuracy."

Griffin 2008 (2)¶

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 2's stepwise regression, the rereading-vs-once dummy variable was not significant (Step 1, p .10); the article reports no statistically significant difference between rereading and reading once on monitoring accuracy in this sample; equivalence was not tested.

"The greater accuracy for rereading (M .39, SEM .07) over read- ing once (M .21, SEM .09) was not significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Counterbalancing condition did not affect map accuracy and did not interact with test condition — related
• Neither rereading nor self-explanation changed comprehension test performance itself; effects were specific to monitoring accuracy — related
• Rereading significantly improves metacomprehension monitoring accuracy relative to reading once (Experiment 1) — related
• Rereading Is A Low Utility Study Strategy — related
• Working memory capacity predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading, independently of comprehension ability (Experiment 2) — related
• Readers with an entertainment goal make more evaluative comments than readers with a study goal, with no difference in affective responses — related
• The context-learning effect did not significantly interact with reading comprehension ability, though the trend favored more able readers — related
• Self-questioning during study benefits low verbal ability high school students more than high verbal ability students (Experiment 1) — related
• Five of seven situation-model interventions significantly improved relative metacomprehension accuracy, concept mapping only marginally (p = .097), and self-explaining not significantly — related
• Reading comprehension ability predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading (Experiments 1 and 2) — related
• Relationships between individual differences and final test performance were nonsignificant in retrieval practice conditions but significant in the rereading condition — related
• High-performing readers use more monitoring strategies while under-performing readers rely more on cognitive strategies like memorization — related
• In-between explaining triggered more monitoring of knowledge gaps than after-study explaining (Experiment 1) — related
• Working memory compensatorily moderates the explaining intervention's advantage: supported self-explaining benefits students with weaker working memory most — reports the opposite