文本特征对元理解监测精确性的影响及机制

doi:10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2025.01.003

心理研究

2025, Vol. 18

Issue (1): 20-27 DOI: 10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2025.01.003

基础研究

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

文本特征对元理解监测精确性的影响及机制

贾瑞红, 姚贝, 魏婕, 袁利, 谷亚欣, 马小凤

西北师范大学心理学院, 甘肃省行为与心理重点实验室, 兰州 730030

The influence and mechanism of text features on the metacomprehension monitoring accuracy

JIA Ruihong, YAO Bei, WEI Jie, YUAN Li, GU Yaxin, MA Xiaofeng

School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070; Key Laboratory of Behavioral and Mental Health of Gansu Province

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (1146 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要精确的元理解监测是自我调节学习成功的前提。已有研究表明个体的元理解监测精确性较低,文本特征是重要影响因素,包括文本体裁、文本难易度、文本呈现方式等。本文在回顾以往研究的基础上,探讨了文本特征对元理解监测精确性的具体影响及内部机制,并指出该领域未来的研究方向,如文本难易度在文本特征与元理解监测精确性之间的调节作用,文本特征与学习者特征的交互影响以及用统一标准来测量个体的元理解监测精确性。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	贾瑞红
	姚贝
	魏婕
	袁利
	谷亚欣
	马小凤

关键词 ：元理解监测精确性, 文本特征, 文本难易度, 文本体裁, 文本呈现载体

基金资助:甘肃省2021年度优秀研究生“创新之星”项目（2021CXZX-241）

通讯作者: 马小凤,女,教授,博士生导师。Email：psymaxiaofeng@126.com

引用本文:

贾瑞红, 姚贝, 魏婕, 袁利, 谷亚欣, 马小凤. 文本特征对元理解监测精确性的影响及机制[J]. 心理研究, 2025, 18(1): 20-27.
JIA Ruihong, YAO Bei, WEI Jie, YUAN Li, GU Yaxin, MA Xiaofeng. The influence and mechanism of text features on the metacomprehension monitoring accuracy. Psychological Research, 2025, 18(1): 20-27.

链接本文:

http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2025.01.003 或 http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/Y2025/V18/I1/20

[1] 陈启山. (2007). 元理解监控的精确性及其延迟关键词效应.心理科学进展, 15(2), 105-110.
[2] 陈启山, 常蕤. (2009). 读者的元理解监测为什么不精确?心理科学进展, 17(4), 706-713.
[3] 贾宁, 代景华. (2012). 小学高年级学生的学习判断绝对准确性及预见偏差.心理发展与教育, 28(1), 7.
[4] 王晓庄, 白学军. (2009). 判断与决策中的锚定效应.心理科学进展, (1), 37-43.
[5] Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper.Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 17(1), 18-32.
[6] Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure.Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816-1828.
[7] Agler L. M. L., Noguchi K., & Alfsen L. K. (2019). Personality traits as predictors of reading comprehension and metacomprehension accuracy.Current Psychology, 1-10.
[8] Alawneh, S., & Yadak, S. (2016). The impact of text type and difficulty on metacomprehension among 10th grade students.International Journal of Education and Practice, 4(3), 90-105.
[9] Alexander P. A., Fox E., Maggioni L., Loughlin S. M., & Dumas D. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century.Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259.
[10] Bannert M., Sonnenberg C., Mengelkamp C., & Pieger E. (2015). Short-and long-term effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 293-306.
[11] Clinton V., Taylor T., Bajpayee S., Seipel B., & Davison M. L. (2020). Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Reading and Writing, 33, 5-6.
[12] Clinton, Virginia (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Research in Reading, 1-38.
[13] Commander N. E., Zhao Y., Li H., Zabrucky K. M., & Agler L.-M. L. (2014). American and Chinese students’ calibration of comprehension and performance.Current Psychology, 33(4), 655-671.
[14] Dahan Golan D., Barzillai M., & Katzir T. (2018). The effect of presentation mode on children’s reading preferences, performance, and self evaluations.Computers & Education, 126, 346-358.
[15] Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts.Computers & Education, 62, 18-23.
[16] Denton C. A., Enos M., York M. J., Francis D. J., Barnes M. A., Kulesz P. A., et al. (2015). Text-processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text.Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 393-416.
[17] Devolder A., Braak J. V., & Tondeur J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 557-573.
[18] Dunlosky J., Baker J. M. C., Rawson K. A., & Hertzog C. (2006). Does aging influence people's metacomprehension? Effects of processing ease on judgments of text learning.Psychology & Aging, 21(2), 390-400.
[19] Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention.Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271-280.
[20] Dunlosky J., Rawson K. A., & Middleton E. L. (2005). What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses.Journal of Memory & Language, 52(4), 551-565.
[21] Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228-232.
[22] Golke S., Hagen R., & Wittwer J. (2019). Lost in narrative? The effect of informative narratives on text comprehension and metacomprehension accuracy.Learning & Instruction, 60, 1-19.
[23] Graesser A. C., Mcnamara D. S., & Kulikowich J. M. (2011). Coh-metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics.Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223-234.
[24] Graesser A. C., McNamara D. S., Louwerse M. M., & Cai Z. (2004). Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 193-202.
[25] Griffin T. D., Jee B. D., & Wiley J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy.Memory & Cognition, 37(7), 1001-1013.
[26] Griffin T. D., Mielicki M. K., & Wiley, J. (2019). Improving students’ metacomprehension accuracy. In J. Dunlosky, & K. A. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (1st ed., pp. 619-646). Cambridge University Press.
[27] Griffin T. D., Wiley J., & Salas C. R. (2013). Supporting effective self-regulated learning: The critical role of monitoring. In R. Azevedo, & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies, 28 pp. (19-34). Springer
[28] 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.
[29] Griffin T. D., Wiley J., & Thiede K. W. (2019). The effects of comprehension-test expectancies on metacomprehension accuracy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(6), 1066-1092.
[30] Halamish, V., & Elbaz, E. (2020). Children’s reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper.Computers & Education, 145(Feb), 1-11.
[31] Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning and Instruction, 34, 58-73.
[32] Ikeda, K., & Kitagami, S. (2013). The interactive effect of working memory and text difficulty on metacomprehension accuracy.Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 94-106.
[33] Katherine, Rawson, John, & Dunlosky. (2002). Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1),69-80.
[34] Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition.Comprehension A Paradigm for Cognition, 10(1), 570.
[35] Koriat, & Asher. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 126(4), 349-370.
[36] León J. A., Martínez-Huertas J. N., Olmos R., Moreno D., & Escudero I. (2019). Metacomprehension skills depend on the type of text: An analysis from Differential Item Functioning.Psicothema, 31(1), 66-72.
[37] Lin L. M., Zabrucky K. M., & Moore D. (2002). Effects of text difficulty and adults’ age on relative calibration of comprehension.American Journal of Psychology, 115(2), 187-198.
[38] Linderholm T., Wang X., Therriault D., Qin Z., & Jakiel L. (2012). The accuracy of metacomprehension judgments: The biasing effect of text order.Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10(1), 111-128.
[39] Linderholm T., Zhao Q., Therriault D. J., & Cordell-Mcnulty K. (2008). Metacomprehension effects situated within an anchoring and adjustment framework.Metacognition & Learning, 3(3), 175-188.
[40] Madison, E. M., & Fulton, E. K. (2022). The influence of summary modality on metacomprehension accuracy.Metacognition and Learning, 17(6), 117-138.
[41] Maki R. H., Shields M., Wheeler A. E., & Zacchilli T. L. (2005). Individual differences in absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 723-731.
[42] Margolin, & Sara, J. (2013). Can bold typeface improve readers’ comprehension and metacomprehension of negation? Reading Psychology, 34(1), 85-99.
[43] Margolin, S. J., amp, & Hover, P. A. (2011). Metacomprehension and negation: Assessing readersa awareness of the difficulty of negated text.Reading Psychology, 32(2), 158-171.
[44] Margolin, S. J., & Brackins, T. (2020). Comprehension and metacomprehension of negated text: Is retrieval practice beneficial for understanding?Written Language & Literacy, 23(1), 92-108.
[45] Margolin, S. J. (2018). Cognitively active older adults’ comprehension and metacomprehension of negated text. Experimental Aging Research, 1-9.
[46] Margolin, S. J., & Snyder, N. (2017). It may not be that difficult the second time around: The effects of rereading on the comprehension and metacomprehension of negated text.Journal of Research in Reading, 41(2), 392-402.
[47] Martin N. D., Nguyen K., & McDaniel M. A. (2016). Structure building differences influence learning from educational text: Effects on encoding, retention, and metacognitive control.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 52-60.
[48] Müller, Nadja M. Seufert, Tina(2018). Effects of self-regulation prompts in hypermedia learning on learning performance and self-efficacy.Learning and Instruction, 58, 1-11.
[49] Norman, E., & Furnes, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media?Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 301-309.
[50] Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research.Frontiers in Psychology, 8(422), 1-28.
[51] Pieger E., Mengelkamp C., & Bannert M. (2016). Metacognitive judgments and disfluency-Does disfluency lead to more accurate judgments, better control, and better performance? Learning and Instruction, 44, 31-40.
[52] Prinz A., Golke S., & Wittwer J. (2020). How accurately can learners discriminate their comprehension of texts? A comprehensive meta-analysis on relative metacomprehension accuracy and influencing factors.Educational Research Review, 31(8), 100358-100389.
[53] Rawson K. A., Dunlosky J., & Thiede K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials.Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 1004-1010.
[54] Shafeq, Alawneh., & Safaa, Yadak. (2016). The impact of text type and difficulty on metacomprehension among 10th grade students.International Journal of Education and Practice, 4(3), 90-105.
[55] Shiu, L., & Chen, Q. (2013). Self and external monitoring of reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 78-88.
[56] Sidi Y., Shpigelman M., Zalmanov H., & Ackerman R. (2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing.Learning and Instruction, 51, 61-73.
[57] Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129-160.
[58] 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 in education,(85-106). New York: Routledge.
[59] Thiede K. W., Redford J. S., Wiley J., & Griffin T. D. (2012). Elementary school experience with comprehension testing may influence metacomprehension accuracy among seventh and eighth graders.Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 554-564.
[60] Vossing J., Stamov-Rossnagel C., & Heinitz K. (2016). Images in computer-supported learning: Increasing their benefits for metacomprehension through judgments of learning.Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 221-230.
[61] Voessing J., Stamov-Rossnagel C., & Heinitz K. (2017). Text difficulty affects metacomprehension accuracy and knowledge test performance in text learning.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 282-291.
[62] Weaver, C. A., & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text.Memory & Cognition, 23(1), 12.
[63] Wiley J., Griffin T. D., Jaeger A. J., Jarosz A. F., Cushen P. J., & Thiede K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(4), 393-405.
[64] Wiley J., Griffin T. D., & Thiede K. W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension with the situation-model approach. In K. Mokhtari (Ed.),Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading strategies instruction(pp. 93-110).
[65] Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2008). Adult metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints.Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 191-206.