Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Monitoring comprehension in a foreign language: Trait or skill?

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Success in higher education is highly dependent on students’ ability to efficiently read and comprehend large amounts of text in the speaker’s first/native language (L1) and also in a Foreign Language (FL). Good text comprehension requires readers to implement a variety of metacognitive processes in order to self-regulate understanding. However, most readers are inaccurate when monitoring their own comprehension level, in the native language. Several studies have investigated FL comprehension monitoring, mostly using self-report measures. The current study further explored the relationship between L1 and FL comprehension monitoring through the paradigm of ‘calibration of comprehension’ (Glenberg and Epstein in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 702-718, 1985). Specifically, 145 university students read texts in each language, answered comprehension questions and rated their confidence. Absolute and relative monitoring accuracy was calculated (bias and resolution, respectively) to study whether comprehension monitoring processes are trait-oriented (shared across languages and domains) or skill-oriented (dependent on language proficiency level). Results suggested that absolute monitoring accuracy is both trait and skill oriented. On the one hand, confidence ratings and bias were significantly correlated across L1, FL and a non-verbal task, suggesting trait-orientation. On the other hand, only individuals who were highly proficient in the FL shared their absolute monitoring skills between the languages, supporting the notion of a skill orientation. Relative monitoring was not associated across tasks or languages. Theoretical and practical implications for effective instruction and learning methods are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As described in the introduction, these predictive Judgements of Learning were not analyzed in the current manuscript.

References

  • Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). Reading skills in three orthographies: The case of trilingual Arabic-Hebrew-English-speaking Arab children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(7), 611–634. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025838029204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abu-Rabia, S., Shakkour, W., & Siegel, L. (2013). Cognitive retroactive transfer (CRT) of language skills among bilingual Arabic-English readers. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.775975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, R., & Leiser, D. (2014). The effect of concrete supplements on metacognitive regulation during learning and open-book test taking. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beglar, D. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the vocabulary size test. Language Testing, 27(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interderpendence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beznos, M. & Prior, A. (2009). Hebrew version of the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire, https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york:822288.

  • Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. S. (1993). Nelson–Denny Reading test. Rolling Meadows: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buratti, S., Allwood, C. M., & Kleitman, S. (2013). First- and second-order metacognitive judgments of semantic memory reports: The influence of personality traits and cognitive styles. Metacognition and Learning, 8(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9096-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Gottardo, A. (2002). Reading-related skills of kindergartners from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 23, 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S. C., Chen, X., & Geva, E. (2019). Deconstructing and reconstructing cross-language transfer in bilingual reading development: An interactive framework. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–25l.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (2012). The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the development of reading comprehension among immigrant students. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1973–1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9290-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2013). What are confidence ratings made of? Students’ explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Mueller, M. L., & Thiede, K. W. (2015). Methodology for Investigating Human Metamemory (J. Dunlosky & S. (Uma) K. Tauber, Eds.; Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.14.

  • Ehrlich, M. F., Remond, M., & Tardieu, H. (1999). Processing of anaphoric devices in young skilled and less skilled comprehenders: Differences in metacognitive monitoring. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 29–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ErçEtin, G., & Alptekin, C. (2013). The explicit/implicit knowledge distinction and working memory: Implications for second-language reading comprehension. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 34(04), 727–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ercikan, K., & Por, H. H. (2020). Comparability in multilingual and multicultural assessment contexts. In A. I. Berman, E. H. Haertel, & J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Comparability of large-scale educational assessments: Issues and recommendations (pp. 205–225). Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1819–1845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geva, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1993). Linguistic and cognitive correlates of academic skills in first and second language. Language Learning, 43, 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, A. (Unpublished). Hebrew version of the Shipley Vocabulary Scale.

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 702–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 15(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. T., Streiner, D. L., & Woodward, C. A. (1974). Test-retest reliability of the Shipley-Institute of Living Scale: Practice effects or random variation. Psychological Reports, 35(1), 351–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabe, W. (2014). Key issues in L2 reading development. Centre for English Language Communication, 8–18.

  • Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman/Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, T. D., Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 37(7), 1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.7.1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, F. (2012). Comprehension monitoring in Reading English as a foreign language. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 36–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, F., & Stevenson, M. A. R. I. E. (2008). Comprehension monitoring in first and foreign language reading. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 3, 73–110. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.1.77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

  • Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.1.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn-Horwitz, J., Shimron, J., & Sparks, R. L. (2005). Predicting foreign language Reading achievement in elementary school students. Reading and Writing, 18(6), 527–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-3179-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperski, R., & Katzir, T. (2013). Are confidence ratings test- or trait-driven? Individual differences among high, average, and low comprehenders in fourth grade. Reading Psychology, 34(1), 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, T., Schiff, R., & Kim, Y.-S. (2012). The effects of orthographic consistency on reading development: A within and between cross-linguistic study of fluency and accuracy among fourth grade English- and Hebrew-speaking children. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 673–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, W. L., Frost, P. J., & Weaver, C. A. (2000). Individual differences in metacognition: Evidence against a general metacognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khonamri, F., & Mahmoudi Kojidi, E. (2011). Metacognitive awareness and comprehension monitoring in Reading ability of Iranian EFL learners. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 13(2), 99–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (2012). Psychological models of reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 21–38). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleider-Tesler, E., Prior, A., & Katzir, T. (2019). The role of calibration of comprehension in adolescence: From theory to online training. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 18(2), 190–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleitman, S., & Stankov, L. (2007). Self-confidence and metacognitive processes. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2007). Comprehension monitoring and reading comprehension in bilingual students. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00319.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–326). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816789.012.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma'ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and Reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonesio, R. J., & Nelson, T. O. (1990). Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lervåg, A., & Aukrust, V. G. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of the difference in reading comprehension growth between first and foreign language learners: Growth in L1 and FL reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(5), 612–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a foreign language. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 1005–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesaux, N., Koda, K., Siegel, L., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Development of literacy. Developing literacy in second-language learners. Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

  • Lin, L. C., & Yu, W. Y. (2015). A think-aloud study of strategy use by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 286–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., Foley, J. M., Kajer, W. K., Thompson, R. C., & Willert, M. G. (1990). Increased Processing Enhances Calibration of Comprehension. Journal of experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16(4), 609–616.

  • Maki, R. H. (1998). Predicting performance on text: Delayed versus immediate predictions and tests. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 959–964. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(4), 663–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and Multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mengelkamp, C., & Bannert, M. (2010). Accuracy of confidence ratings: Stability and generality in the learning process and predictive validity for learning outcome. Memory & Cognition, 38(4), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.4.441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D., Lin-Agler, L. M., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2005). A source of Metacomprehension inaccuracy. Reading Psychology, 26(3), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590962578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9–13 Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/tlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T. O. (1996). Gamma is a measure of the accuracy of predicting performance on one item relative to another item, not of the absolute performance of an individual item comments on Schraw. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(3), 257–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). The role of individual differences in the accuracy of confidence ratings. The Journal of General Psychology, 129(3), 257–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221300209602099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieschl, S. (2009). Metacognitive calibration—An extended conceptualization and potential applications. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9030-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1988). Delusions about performance on multiple-choice comprehension tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 454. https://doi.org/10.2307/747643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A. (2012). Too much of a good thing: Stronger bilingual inhibition leads to larger lag-2 task repetition costs. Cognition, 125, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A., Zeltsman-Kulick, R. & Katzir, T. (2020). Adolescent word reading in English as a foreign language. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(1), 116–139.

  • Raven, J. C. (1960). Guide to the standard progressive matrices. London: H.K. Lewis & Co. Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A., Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials. Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarac, S., & Tarhan, B. (2009). Calibration of comprehension and performance in L2 reading. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 167–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2012). E-prime User’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Roedel, T. D. (1994). Test difficulty and judgment bias. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, A. I., Mendoza, L., & Meyer, B. (2013). The impact of text structure reading strategy instruction in a foreign language: Benefits across languages. The Language Learning Journal, 1–19.

  • Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self administering-scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9, 371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silawi, R., Shalhoub-Awwad, Y. & Prior, A. (2020). Comprehension monitoring in L1, L2 and L3: Domain general or language specific? Language Learning, 70(3), 886–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12410.

  • Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Rand Corporation.

  • Stankov, L. (1999). Mining on the “no man's land” between intelligence and personality. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 315–337). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stankov, L., Lee, J., Luo, W., & Hogan, D. J. (2012). Confidence: A better predictor of academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety? Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankov, L., Kleitman, S., & Jackson, S. A. (2015). Measures of the trait of confidence. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs (pp. 158–189). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00007-3.

  • Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2007). Inhibition or compensation? A multidimensional comparison of Reading processes in Dutch and English: Inhibition or compensation? Language Learning, 57, 115–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00414.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taki, S. (2016). Metacognitive online reading strategy use: Readers' perceptions in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapman, M., van Gelderen, A., van Schooten, E., & Hulstijn, J. (2017). Reading comprehension level and development in native and language minority adolescent low achievers: Roles of linguistic and metacognitive knowledge and fluency. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1183541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, Y.-R., Ernst, C., & Talley, P. C. (2010). L1 and L2 strategy use in reading comprehension of Chinese EFL readers. Reading Psychology, 31, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802412081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, C. A. I. I. I., & Bryant, D. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23, 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Beyond the basics. System, 27(4), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00043-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zachary, A. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Revised manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachary, R. A. (1991) The manual of the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

  • Zhang, D., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL) in second/foreign language teaching. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–15). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_47-1.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grant 1094/14 from the Israeli Science Foundation to AP and TK and by the Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the study of Learning Disabilities. The authors wish to thank Dr. Nachshon Korem for programming assistance, Razan Silawi and Gali Yosephi for diligent assistance in data collection and coding, and Sandra Zuckerman for statistics consulting.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Edmond J Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning and Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Lilach Temelman-Yogev, Tami Katzir & Anat Prior

Authors
  1. Lilach Temelman-Yogev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tami Katzir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anat Prior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anat Prior.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors hereby declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

The study was approved by the IRB of the University of Haifa, and all participants gave full informed consent, and were compensated for their participation in the study.

Additional information

Author notes:

1. We confirm that for the experiment described here we have reported all measures, conditions and data exclusion decisions. In addition to the measures reported in the current manuscript, we also administered two WMC tasks (operation-span and Letter-Number sequencing) which will be analyzed in a future manuscript. Reading times and response times were also recorded in the reading comprehension task, in order to ascertain that participants were indeed engaged in reading the texts but were not further analyzed. In addition, the participants in the current experiment were also followed longitudinally in a training and feedback paradigm for 4 additional sessions, and a final follow up session. These longitudinal data will also be reported in a separate manuscript. Sample size was based on estimated power analyses of training and feedback effects, and on feasibility of conducting a longitudinal intervention study.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCsX 34 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Temelman-Yogev, L., Katzir, T. & Prior, A. Monitoring comprehension in a foreign language: Trait or skill?. Metacognition Learning 15, 343–365 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09245-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09245-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation