Supporting Effective Self-Regulated Learning: The Critical Role of Monitoring

  • Thomas D. Griffin
  • Jennifer Wiley
  • Carlos R. Salas
Chapter
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)

Abstract

This chapter explicates an empirically grounded and detailed theoretical framework for understanding the various components of self-regulated learning. A key distinction is articulated between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive monitoring. It is argued that it is the accurate monitoring of learning experiences that is critical for effective self-regulation during learning, and that various accuracy measures for judgments of learning differ in how well they assess this construct of monitoring accuracy. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of improving the relative accuracy of metacognitive monitoring skills, and that typical instruction in study strategies may not be sufficient to improve monitoring. The results of studies and manipulations that have resulted in superior monitoring accuracy are reviewed, and the implications for the development of learning technologies are discussed. A key observation is that in order to provide the opportunity for the development of effective regulatory skills, learning environments need to be careful not to deprive students of the opportunity to engage in self-regulation or monitoring of their own understanding.

Keywords

Expense Plague Maki 

References

  1. Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 309–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caverly, D. G., Nicholson, S. A., & Radcliffe, R. (2004). The effectiveness of strategic reading instruction for college developmental readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35, 25–46.Google Scholar
  4. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer, P. M., & Mandl, H. (1984). Learner, text variables, and the control of text comprehension and recall. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 213–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702–718.Google Scholar
  12. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1001–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofer, B. K., & Sinatra, G. M. (2010). Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: musings on an emerging field. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: a three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 126, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Research, 28, 16–26.Google Scholar
  23. Lin, L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maki, R. H. (1998). Test predictions over text material. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Maki, R. H., & Serra, M. (1992). Role of practice tests in the accuracy of test predictions on text material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Metcalfe, J. (2002). Is study time allocated selectively to a region of proximal learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 131, 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing student’s metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore, D., Zabrucky, K., & Commander, N. E. (1997). Validation of the metacomprehension scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muis, K. R., & Franco, G. (2010). Epistemic profiles and metacognition: support for the consistency hypothesis. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of feeling-of-knowing accuracy. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–141). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  36. Pierce, B. H., & Smith, S. M. (2001). The postdiction superiority effect in metacomprehension of text. Memory & Cognition, 29, 62–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.Google Scholar
  38. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 184–200). Newark, De: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  39. Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1004–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self- regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Royer, J. M., Carlo, M. S., Dufrense, R., & Mestre, J. (1996). The assessment of levels of domain expertise while reading. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 373–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sanchez, C., & Wiley, J. (2006). Effects of working memory capacity on learning from illustrated text. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing meta-cognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stahl, E., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2006). Task complexity, epistemological beliefs, and metacognitive calibration: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thiede, K. W., Dunlosky, J., Griffin, T. D., & Wiley, J. (2005). Understanding the delayed keyword effect on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 1267–1280.Google Scholar
  47. Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47, 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. S. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition and self-regulated learning (pp. 85–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2011). Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trabasso, T., & Wiley, J. (2005). Goal plans of action and inferences during comprehension of narratives. Discourse Processes, 39, 129–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weaver, C. A. (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 214–222.Google Scholar
  52. Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiley, J., Griffin, T., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehension. The Journal of General Psychology, 132, 408–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). To understand your understanding you must understand what understanding means. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love, & K. McRae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society: Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  55. Wiley, J., & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as ­self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  59. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas D. Griffin
    • 1
  • Jennifer Wiley
    • 1
  • Carlos R. Salas
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations