Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy
Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11409-012-9093-0
复制
发表时间：
2013-04-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Fukaya, Tatsushi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fukaya, Tatsushi
监控自己理解状态的能力对于熟练地完成学业任务很重要。以往的研究表明，理解监测（元认知准确性）通常很差，但改善时，读者参与的活动，访问有效的线索反映他们的情况模型（活动，如概念映射或自我解释）。然而，问题仍然是编码或检索哪一个过程会导致元理解准确性的提高，并且之前关于这个问题的研究结果并不一致。本研究考察了大学生在阅读过程中，当他们期望稍后解释（主动编码）或当他们实际产生解释（编码加主动提取）时，元理解准确性是否会提高。在实验中，大学生阅读五篇课文。在阅读过程中，一些学生期望他们会产生解释，但实际上并没有产生。相反，有些学生在阅读后实际上产生了对课文的解释。然后，所有学生对他们对每篇课文的理解进行评分。最后，他们完成了对材料的测试。这两项研究的结果表明，元认知准确性，操作的理解评级和测试性能之间的关联，是更大的组，实际上产生的解释比预期或控制组。
The ability to monitor the status of one's own understanding is important to accomplish academic tasks proficiently. Previous studies have shown that comprehension monitoring (metacomprehension accuracy) is generally poor, but improves when readers engage in activities that access valid cues reflecting their situation model (activities such as concept mapping or self-explaining). However, the question still remains as to which process, encoding or retrieving, causes the improvement of metacomprehension accuracy, and the findings of previous research on this matter have been inconsistent. This study examined whether college students' metacomprehension accuracy improves when they expect, at the time of reading, that they will explain the content later (active encoding) or when they actually generate an explanation (encoding plus active retrieving). In the experiments, college students read five texts. During reading, some students expected that they would generate explanations but did not actually generate them. In contrast, some students actually generated an explanation of the text after reading. All students then rated their comprehension of each text. Finally, they completed tests on the materials. Results of both studies revealed that metacomprehension accuracy, operationalized as the association between comprehension ratings and test performance, was greater for the group that actually generated explanations than for the expectancy or control groups.