The ability to read and learn from written texts is a fundamental skill for all learners of English. For decades, the central role of reading has spurred extensive research into the cognitive processes that underpin it. Early studies primarily focused on comparing the strategies of high and low-ability native English readers (Flavell, 1979; Leal, 1987). While this established a strong foundation, a growing body of research has since shifted attention to the unique challenges faced by readers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), acknowledging the distinct metacognitive demands placed upon them (Sarac & Tarhan, 2009; Portia, 2005).

From Cognition to Metacognition

A key insight from this research is that reading proficiency is not solely determined by cognitive capacity—such as vocabulary and grammar knowledge—but is profoundly influenced by metacognition. Metacognition, defined as “the knowledge, awareness, and control of one’s own cognitive processes” (Matlin, 2005), serves as a higher-order executive function. When applied specifically to reading, this is termed metacomprehension, which can be understood as the act of monitoring and evaluating one’s own understanding of a text (Israel et al., 2006). In essence, it is “thinking about one’s own thinking” while reading.

The Function and Importance of Metacomprehension

The primary function of metacomprehension is to enable self-regulated learning. To study effectively, readers must be able to accurately judge their level of comprehension. This allows them to allocate their time and cognitive resources efficiently, focusing on less-understood sections rather than passively re-reading entire texts (Thiede et al., 2003; Metcalfe, 2009). For instance, a student who can accurately identify a confusing paragraph in a scientific article can then target that specific area for review, making their study session far more productive.

The Metacomprehension Accuracy Paradox

A critical and well-documented finding in this field is the metacomprehension accuracy paradox: readers are often remarkably poor at judging how well they have understood a text. Numerous studies have shown a disappointingly low correlation between a reader’s confidence in their comprehension and their actual performance on subsequent tests (Dunlosky & Lipko, 2007). This overconfidence or misjudgment is a significant barrier to effective learning, as it prevents readers from engaging in the necessary corrective strategies.

Strategies for Improvement and Recent Advances

Given the importance of accurate metacomprehension, researchers have investigated strategies to enhance it. The consensus is that techniques which encourage deeper, more active engagement with the text are most effective. Foundational studies demonstrated the power of strategies like:

• Rereading with a specific purpose (Rawson, Dunlosky, & Thiede, 2000).
• Self-explanation and summarization, which force the reader to articulate their understanding in their own words (Thiede & Anderson, 2003).

Recent research has built upon this foundation, exploring more nuanced and powerful techniques:

1. Generative Learning Strategies: Contemporary studies emphasize “generative” activities where learners must create meaning. This includes drawing concept maps or creating analogies, which have been shown to improve metacomprehension accuracy more than passive highlighting or re-reading (Fiorella & Mayer, 2016).
2. Delayed Keyword Generation: Thiede, Griffin, Wiley, & Redford (2009) found that asking readers to generate a list of keywords after a delay is a highly effective metacognitive prompt. The delay reduces reliance on surface-level memory, forcing a deeper assessment of the text’s main ideas.
3. Practice Testing (Retrieval Practice): One of the most robust findings in recent educational psychology is the power of retrieval practice. Actively recalling information from memory (e.g., through self-testing) not only strengthens memory but also provides a starkly accurate calibration of one’s actual knowledge, thereby dramatically improving metacomprehension (Karpicke & Blunt, 2011; Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013).
4. Digital and Multimedia Contexts: With the rise of digital reading, new research explores metacomprehension in online environments. Studies indicate that the constant distractions and nonlinear nature of hypertext can impair comprehension monitoring, highlighting the need for explicit instruction in metacognitive strategies for digital literacy (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011).

Conclusion and Future Directions

In summary, metacomprehension is a critical determinant of successful reading comprehension and learning. While learners naturally struggle with accurately judging their understanding, evidence-based strategies that promote active processing—such as summarization, self-testing, and generative tasks—offer powerful means for improvement. Future research is strongly recommended to further refine these strategies, particularly in the context of digital and multimodal literacy, and to develop effective interventions for diverse learner populations, including EFL students who stand to benefit immensely from enhanced metacognitive awareness.

References

• Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32.
• 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.
• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.
• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741.
• Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K. L., & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (Eds.). (2006). Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. Routledge.
• Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775.
• Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 1004-1010.
• Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160.
• 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 (pp. 85–106). Routledge.

Image by Sabrina Eickhoff from Pixabay

By Dr. Amro Althubaiti