Metacognitive Processing in Text Comprehension (page 2)

Metacognitive abilities are essential for comprehending texts in order to read to learn (Brown, 1982). There are two aspects to metacognition. One aspect involves self-appraisal, or knowledge about cognition and conscious access to one's own cognitive operations and reflection about those of others. The other aspect of metacognition involves self-management, or regulation of cognition, which involves planning, evaluating, and regulating strategies (Brown, 1987; Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Both types of metacognition are critical for reading comprehension. First and foremost, students must be able to monitor their comprehension (self-appraisal): They must know if they are understanding what they are reading, and they must be able to take actions if they are not comprehending (self-management). The self-appraisal component requires three types of knowledge: declarative, procedural, and conditional (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983; Schunk, 2001). Declarative knowledge is knowledge of what—for example, what a journal entry or summary is. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how—for example, the steps one takes to write a journal entry or summary. Conditional knowledge is knowledge of when and why—for example, when and why one writes a journal entry or summary. The self-management metacognition component for planning and controlling actions is related to reading comprehension in two ways: Awareness of when and how to plan is critical for understanding characters' goal-directed behavior in narratives, and ability to evaluate one's comprehension and plan are critical for employing comprehension repair strategies. Poor comprehenders show less evidence of metacognitive awareness and strategic behaviors. Compared to good comprehenders, they exhibit less use of spontaneous study strategies, correct fewer errors during reading, detect fewer anomalous phrases, do less self-questioning, and have less of an awareness of the goals of reading (Gardner, 1987; Paris & Myers, 1981; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991).

If students are using these strategies, then they will actively use information from content and text grammar schemata to facilitate comprehension by making predictions about what is to come in a text and by monitoring their comprehension to determine if their predictions are met (Meyer, 1987). For example, if you are reading a murder mystery, you are alert to clues that will lead you to discover the identity of the murderer. In expository text that begins with a topic sentence, you read to find information that supports the statement. You look for organizing words that signal sequence (first, next, eventually), cause-effect (because, since, as a result of), comparison-contrast (similar to, however, although), analysis (characteristics, types, some features), and others (Dickson, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 1998; Finley & Seaton, 1987). If readers are unfamiliar with the structure of a text, they experience difficulty in determining what is and what is not important and the interrelationships among the information presented. Consequently, comprehension of the passage is limited.

The selection, maintenance, or changing of schemata during text comprehension requires monitoring (Pearson & Spiro, 1980; van den Broek, Young, Tzeng, & Linderholm, 1999). When we listen or read, we are matching the present information to our schema knowledge and attempting to determine if we have a schema for what is being presented. As new information arrives, one must determine if it fits the selected schema or if another schema is needed. For example, a group of students were reading a story in which the main character, Jim, suggested that rustlers were responsible for the rocks rolling down the mountains. If the students retrieved their schema for rustlers, they should then expect some mention of cattle and perhaps a sheriff to appear as the story continued. If this is not forthcoming, then they must assume that they have selected the wrong schema and must look for other information to instantiate a different schema.

Many students with reading disabilities exhibit deficits in metacognitive abilities involving comprehension monitoring, planning of their own behavior, and in metacognitive awareness that planning is something that they or someone else might do (Baker, 1982; Hallahan, Kneedler, & Lloyd, 1983; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991; Wong & Wong, 1986). If students lack such metacognitive abilities, then they will likely not recognize planning on the parts of characters in texts, nor will they attempt to use metacognitive strategies to interpret text and to monitor their own comprehension of the text.