Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Metacognitive regulation contributes to digital text comprehension in E-learning

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the contribution of self-reported metacognitive regulation of reading to expository digital text comprehension in an e-learning environment, completed at home, instead of a class or lab. Two hundred and nineteen college students read and answered questions about two low previous knowledge hypertexts, and reported metacognitive activities during the comprehension tasks with a metacognitive inventory referred to the tasks just completed. They also completed a questionnaire about their Internet frequency use and experience. Verbal ability and working memory tests were administered in a lab session. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses defined two factors underlying the metacognitive scale, Global/Monitoring, including having in mind the task purpose, re-reading and paying attention to important or difficult parts, and Problem Solving in disorientation or lack of understanding, and the use of typography and navigation elements as comprehension aids. Metacognitive activity scores were neither associated with verbal ability nor Internet experience. Students with more verbal ability, more Global/Monitor metacognitive skills, and more Internet experience were more likely to correctly answer comprehension questions. Results are in line with previous studies in controlled settings and show the relevance of self-regulation for e-learning comprehension.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P., & Paris, S. (2017). Skills and strategies. Their differences, their relationships, and why they matter. In K. Mokhtari (Ed.), Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading instruction (pp. 33–48). Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amadieu, F., & Salmerón, L. (2014). Concept maps for comprehension and navigation of hypertexts. In Digital knowledge maps in education (pp. 41–59). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Johnson, A., Chauncey, A., & Burkett, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning with MetaTutor: Advancing the science of learning with MetaCognitive tools. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Computers, cognition, and collaboration in education (pp. 225–247). Amsterdam: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Behnagh, R., Duffy, M., Harley, J., & Trevors, G. (2013). Metacognition and self-regulated learning in student-centered leaning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 171–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), R136–R140 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.014.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Bannert, I. Molenaar, R. Azevedo, S. Järvelä, & D. Gašević (2017). Relevance of learning analytics to measure and support students' learning in adaptive educational technologies. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge conference (pp. 568-569). https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3029463.

  • Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Yehudah, G., Hautala, J., Padeliadu, S., Antoniou, F., Petrová, Z., Leppänen, P., & Barzillai, M. (2018). Affordances and challenges of digital reading for individuals with different learning profiles. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & van der Broek (Eds.), Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 121–140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J. S., Sulcer, B., & Roscoe, R. (2010). Measuring self-regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5(02), 123–152 https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206810000839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111–130 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burin, D. I., Barreyro, J. P., Saux, G., & Irrazabal, N. (2015). Navigation and comprehension of digital expository texts: Hypertext structure, previous domain knowledge, and working memory capacity. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(3), 529–550 ISSN: 1696-2095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burin, D.I., Irrazabal, N., Ricle, I.I., Saux, G., & Barreyro, J. P. (2018). Self-reported internet skills, previous knowledge and working memory in text comprehension in E-learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 15, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0099-9

  • Cho, B.-Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2015). Reading on the internet: Realizing and constructing potential texts. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(6), 504–517 https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.387.

  • Cho, B.-Y., Han, H., & Kucan, L. (2018). An exploratory study of middle school learners' historical reading in an internet environment. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(7), 1525–1549 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9847-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coiro, J. (2011a). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(532–392) https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979, 352–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coiro, J. (2011b). Talking about reading: Modeling the hidden complexities of online reading comprehension. Theory Into Practice, 50(107–115) https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.558435, 107–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. The handbook of reseaarch in new literacies (pp. 1-18). New York: Routledge.

  • Cortada de Kohan, N. (2004). BAIRES: Test de aptitud verbal Buenos Aires. Madrid: TEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2011). Measuring strategy use in context with multiple-choice items. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 155–177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9070-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, B., van der Meij, H., & Lazonder, A. W. (2008). Supporting reflective web searching in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 649–665 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, H. J. (1959). Medidas sencillas de lecturabilidad. Consigna, 214, 29–32 Retrieved from https://linguistlist.org/issues/22/22-2332.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fesel, S. S., Segers, E., De Leeuw, L., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). Strategy training and mindmapping facilitates children’s hypertext comprehension. Written Language and Literacy, 19(2), 131–156 https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.19.2.01fes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (p. 3–26). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Graesser, A., & McNamara, D. (2010). Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 234–244 https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2–3), 89–105 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9013-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerman, M. S. (2017). Disrupting students’ online reading and research habits: The LINKS intervention and its impact on multiple internet text integration processes. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 18(1), 105–156 ISSN: 1535-0975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahnel, C., Goldhammer, F., Johannes Naumann, J., & Kröhne, U. (2016). Effects of linear reading, basic computer skills, evaluating online information, and navigation on reading digital text. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 486–500 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2018). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R Package Version 0.5–1.

  • Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2009). Developing web literacy in collaborative inquiry activities. Computers & Education, 52(3), 668–680 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, F. R., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). A five-phase learning cycle approach to improving the web-based problem-solving performance of students. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

  • Lan, L., Lo, Y., & Hsu, Y. (2014). The effects of metacognitive instruction on students' reading comprehension in computerized reading contexts: A quantitative meta-analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 186–202 Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.4.186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. J., & Tedder, M. C. (2003). The effects of three different computer texts on readers’ recall: Based on working memory capacity. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 767–783 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00008-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. J. Leu, & J. Castek (2006). What skills and strategies are characteristic of accomplished adolescent users of the internet? In D. J. Leu & D. P. Reinking (chairs) Developing Internet reading comprehension strategies among adolescents at risk to become dropouts. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Leu, D. J., Kiili, C., & Forzani, E. (2015). Individual differences in the new literacies of online research and comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCardle, L., & Hadwin, A. F. (2015). Using multiple, contextualized data sources to measure learners’ perceptions of their self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10(1), 43–75 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9132-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K., Likens, A., Johnson, A., Guerrero, T., & McNamara, D. (2018). Metacognitive overload! Positive and negative effects of metacognitive prompts in an intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(3), 1–19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-018-0164-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (2017). Self-explanation and Reading strategy training (SERT) improves low-knowledge students’ science course performance. Discourse Processes, 54(7), 479–492 https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1101328.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Self-explanation and metacognition: The dynamics of reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 60–81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D. M., & Reichard, C. A. (2018). Revising the metacognitive awareness of Reading strategies inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 219–246 https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 270–298 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, J., & Salmerón, L. (2016). Does navigation always predict performance? Effects of relevant page selection on digital reading performance are moderated by offline comprehension skills. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17, 42–59 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i1.2113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, J., Richter, T., Christmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2008). Working memory capacity and reading skill moderate the effectiveness of strategy training in learning from hypertext. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 197–213 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.08.007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science.

  • OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 results. Students on line: Digital technologies and performance. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en.

  • OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical Frameowork. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241 https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Klug, J., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated learning field: When measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 723–735 https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1066436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C. C., Wang, W., Swanson, L., Dardick, W., Li, S., & Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 48–76 https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piacente, T. (2003). Evaluación de las Estrategias Metacognitivas. La Plata, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. R. Pintrich (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502).

  • W. Revelle (2016). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. R package version 1.6.12. Retrieved from http://personality-project.org/r

  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmerón, L., & Llorens, A. (2018). Instruction of digital reading strategies based on eye-movements modeling examples. Journal of Educational Computing Research, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117751605, 57, 343–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & van der Broek (Eds.), Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2007). Examining the validity of self-reports on scales measuring students’ strategic processing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 351–378 https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X106147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellings, G., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2011). Measuring strategy use with self-report instruments: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 83–90 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9081-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Oakland, CA: Babson Survey Research Group Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Team, N. L. R. (2005). A methodology for studying the new literacies of online reading comprehension. Miami, FL: National Reading Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 205–211 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9080-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2003). WAIS III: Test de Inteligencia Para Adultos. Buenos Aires, AR: Paidós.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice, the educational psychology series (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by Secretaria de Ciencia y Tecnica, Universidad de Buenos Aires UBACYT 20020150100024BA and Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica PICT-2015-2706 grants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Investigaciones, Facultad de Psicologia, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Lavalle 2353. C1052AAA, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Debora I. Burin, Federico Martin Gonzalez, Juan Pablo Barreyro & Irene Injoque-Ricle

  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Debora I. Burin, Juan Pablo Barreyro & Irene Injoque-Ricle

Authors
  1. Debora I. Burin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Federico Martin Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Pablo Barreyro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Irene Injoque-Ricle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Martin Gonzalez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burin, D.I., Gonzalez, F., Barreyro, J. et al. Metacognitive regulation contributes to digital text comprehension in E-learning. Metacognition Learning 15, 391–410 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09226-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09226-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation