Educational Gerontology, 26:737–749, 2000 Copyright Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis 0360-1277/00 $12.00 C .00
METACOMPREHENSION KNOWLEDGE AND COMPREHENSION OF EXPOSITORY AND NARRATIVE TEXTS AMONG YOUNGER AND OLDER ADULTS Lin-Miao Lin University of Southern Mississippi-Gulf Coast, Long Beach, Mississippi, USA
DeWayne Moore Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
Karen M. Zabrucky Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
In the present study we investigated the relations between younger and older adults’ metacomprehension knowledge and their comprehension of expository and narrative texts as well as their self-perceptions of comprehension evaluation ability. We employed the Metacomprehension Scale (MCS) designed by Moore, Zabrucky, and Commander (1997a) to assess readers’ metacomprehension knowledge; adults’ self-perceived comprehension evaluation ability was measured using a Likert scale. Results indicate that metacomprehension knowledge as measured by the MCS was a reliable predictor of comprehension performance and selfperceptions of comprehension evaluation ability in younger and older adults. However, younger and older adults’ comprehension was best predicted by different components of metacomprehension knowledge, and metacomprehension knowledge better predicted comprehension of expository than narrative texts. This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (R29 AG09208) to Karen M. Zabrucky. We would like to thank Charles A. Weaver III and Deborah S. Bryant for supplying us with the passages and questions used in this research. Address correspondence to Lin-Miao Lin, Division of Education and Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi-Gulf Coast, Long Beach, MS, 39560. E-mail:
[email protected] 737
738
L.-M. Lin et al.
Knowledge about cognition is one component of metacognition (Baker & Brown, 1984) and is generally assessed by having participants answer a questionnaire regarding their self-knowledge of some aspect of cognition, most typically memory or comprehension (e.g., Hultsch, Hertzog, Dixon, & Davidson, 1988; Moore et al., 1997a; Moore, Zabrucky, & Commander, 1997b). Types of self-knowledge investigated include, but are not limited to, self-beliefs in one’s cognitive abilities, anxiety associated with performance, knowledge about basic cognitive processes and strategies, knowledge about regulatory methods for resolving cognitive problems, and control over performance. An underlying assumption of research on metacognition is that knowledge about cognition should be closely related to and predictive of cognitive performance. Individuals who have more knowledge of their own thinking processes and strategy use are expected to be more likely to apply this knowledge, resulting in better performance. Researchers interested in metacognition have often generated domain-specic questionnaires to assess knowledge about a particular cognitive process. Much of the initial research on metacognition in adults focused on metacognitive skills in memory (i.e., metamemory). For example, Dixon and Hultsch (1983) generated a multiple-dimension metamemory scale for adults, the Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) scale, which has since been used in several studies (e.g., Cavanaugh & Poon, 1989; Dixon & Hultsch, 1984; Dixon, Hertzog, & Hultsch, 1986; Hultsch et al., 1988). Although research ndings on the predictive power of metamemory measures such as MIA on memory performance have not been consistent, several studies have reported reliable relations between metamemory and memory performance (e.g., Dixon & Hultsch, 1983; Dixon et al., 1986; Zelinski, Gilewski, & Thompson, 1980). Due to the domain-specic nature of the metamemory measures, they cannot be considered adequate instruments for measuring other metacognitive skills such as metacomprehension. Thus, there has been a need for investigators interested in metacomprehension to construct a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess knowledge and beliefs about comprehension performance. Moore et al. (1997a) have recently designed a Metacomprehension Scale (MCS) to assess self-knowledge about comprehension processes for adults. The MCS was designed to examine several components of individuals’ knowledge about comprehension, including knowledge about effective techniques to improve comprehension, use of strategies to solve comprehension problems, knowledge of basic comprehension processes, anxiety associated with comprehension performance, control of reading skills, and perception of one’s comprehension abilities. Moore et al. were able to show relatively
Knowledge and Comprehension
739
strong evidence for the validity of the instrument and to report acceptable reliabilities on the MCS subscales. The scale was also found to explain a substantial amount of the variance in comprehension performance, indicating that knowledge about comprehension measured by the MCS was a reliable predictor of comprehension ability. Research regarding adult age differences in metamemory has shown that younger and older adults’ memory performance is often predicted by different components of metamemory knowledge (Cavanaugh & Poon, 1989; Dixon & Hultsch, 1983). For example, Dixon and Hultsch (1983) examined the relation between eight dimensions of metamemory (assessed by the MIA) and memory for text performance in younger and older adults. They found that whereas younger adults’ recall performance is best accounted for by the knowledge component of metamemory (e.g., strategies used to remember information), older adults’ performance appears to be more related to beliefs and feelings about memory tasks (e.g., locus of control over remembering abilities). To date, we have little information about whether adults’ age interacts with their knowledge of comprehension to predict comprehension performance. One purpose of the present study was to examine metacomprehension knowledge as a predictor of comprehension performance in younger and older adults. In the present study, we employed Moore and others’, (1997a) metacomprehension scale to assess adults’ knowledge about comprehension. In past research, investigators have most typically used expository texts when assessing the relations between adults’ knowledge of comprehension and their comprehension performance (e.g., Moore, et al., 1997a, 1997b; Zabrucky & Moore, 1994). Expository texts are generally more difcult to read and understand than narratives (e.g. Britton, Glynn, & Smith, 1985; Budd, Whitney, & Turly, 1995), in part because of fewer temporal and causal connections and less predictability and familiarity in content and structure (e.g. Hynd & Chase, 1991; Petros, Norgaard, Olson, & Tabor, 1989; Spiro & Taylor, 1987; Tun, 1989). For this reason, it is possible that knowledge of comprehension processes and strategies is more critical for expository than for narrative texts because the expository texts are more cognitively demanding. If so, such knowledge might be more likely to predict comprehension of expository than narrative texts. In the present study, we expanded our investigation of metacomprehension knowledge to include an examination of the role of comprehension knowledge on comprehension performance, of both expository and narrative texts. As Schunk (1995) suggested, the role of metacognitive knowledge must be considered along with individuals’ perceptions of competence,
740
L.-M. Lin et al.
because perceived capability often directs learners to engage in selfregulated learning. In a recent study Schraw (1997) found that students’ general metacognitive knowledge is related to increased condence in perceived capability as well as more accurate posttest performance judgment. A second purpose of the present study was to explore the relation of metacomprehension knowledge (measured by the MCS) to young and old adults’ self-perception of comprehension evaluation ability.
METHOD Participants Participants were 60 younger (Mage D 26.63, range D 23 to 35; Meducation D 17.73, range D 17 to 20) and 60 older (Mage D 70.32, range D 61 to 84; Meducation D 18.25, range D 17 to 20) adults with graduate education or a graduate degree. Younger participants were graduate students recruited from four universities in the southeast. Older participants consisted of church members, university alumni, and individuals attending local senior universities. Participants were given an honorarium for participating. No signicant differences were found for self-reported current health and vision as rated on 1 – 7 scales (1 D ‘poor’, and 7 D ‘excellent’) between younger (Ms D 6.20 and 6.20, respectively) and older participants (Ms D 6.09 and 5.99, respectively). The older group, however, had lower self-reported hearing acuity, t(117) D 2.07, p < .05 (M D 6.13 for younger adults; M D 5.71 for older adults).
Materials Comprehension task. Expository and narrative texts and multiplechoice questions developed by Weaver and Bryant (1995; Exp. 2) were used in the study. Each participant in our study read two expository passages and two narrative passages (see Weaver & Bryant, 1995, for additional details about the passages). Each text had four paragraphs, with each paragraph containing approximately the same amount of reading material. Four questions were devised from each paragraph of text. Thus, 16 questions were generated from each text, and each participant answered a total of 64 questions across four texts. Metacomprehension knowledge scale (MCS). Participants’ metacomprehension knowledge was measured using the Metacomprehension
Knowledge and Comprehension
741
Scale (MCS) designed by Moore et al. (1997a). The MCS has 7 components, consisting of 22 statements about reading comprehension abilities and strategies. A 5-point scale was used to indicate degree of agreement with each statement, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The 7 components are Regulation, Strategy, Task, Capacity, Anxiety, Achievement, and Locus. Regulation is the assessment of individuals’ use of strategies to solve comprehension problems (e.g., ‘‘reread’’). Strategy refers to individuals’ knowledge about and employment of effective techniques to improve comprehension (e.g., ‘‘scan before reading’’). Task assesses knowledge of basic comprehension processes (e.g., ‘‘abstract texts are difcult to comprehend’’). Capacity measures individuals’ perception of their own comprehension abilities (e.g., ‘‘good at understanding newspaper articles’’). Anxiety assesses feelings of stress related to comprehension tasks (e.g., ‘‘get ustered when put on spot to read and understand something new’’). Achievement focuses on perceived importance of good comprehension skills (e.g., ‘‘admire people with good comprehension abilities’’). Locus refers to perceived control of reading skills and comprehension abilities (e.g., ‘‘hard work improves reading comprehension’’). The reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .56 to .89 for all but one component (the reliability for Regulation was .34). Comprehension evaluation ability scale. A 6-point comprehension evaluation ability scale was used to rate participants’ self-perceived ability to assess comprehension (1 D Very Poor at Evaluating Comprehension, and 6 D Very Good at Evaluating Comprehension). The purpose of this scale was to assess participants’ overall awareness of their ability to evaluate understanding of texts. Participants were given the following instructions: We want you to rate how accurately you can judge when you have fully understood reading materials when you read medium-length story-like or explanatory passages. If you generally know how well you understand reading materials, circle a point near the end of the scale labeled ‘‘Very Good at Evaluating Comprehension.’’ If you generally are unable to evaluate how well you comprehend reading materials, circle a point toward the end of the scale labeled ‘‘Very Poor at Evaluating Comprehension.’’ Please mark your rating on any part of the scale that best corresponds to your perceived comprehension evaluation ability.
Procedures Participants were tested individually or in small groups of no more than four people in each group. The experimental session consisted of two parts. In the rst half of the session, participants were asked to
742
L.-M. Lin et al.
provide some demographic information and rate their health, vision, and hearing on Likert scales. Participants were then given the 6-point comprehension evaluation ability scale to rate their ability to assess comprehension. Following the comprehension evaluation ability scale, four timed tasks not discussed in the present paper were presented to participants. The comprehension task was administered in the second half of the session. Participants were told that they were to work through the passages at their own pace. They were encouraged to read carefully and to take as much time as needed. Participants were asked to read each passage once for comprehension. After reading each text, participants provided ratings about the passages (the ratings were not discussed in the present paper). After participants read all four passages, they were then asked to answer 64 multiple-choice questions derived from the just-read texts. Participants were presented with 16 questions on a specic passage as a set, with each set being titled (e.g., ‘‘You will now be asked some questions over the passage entitled. . .’’). The order of the passages read and the sets of questions answered were randomized, as were the questions within each set. Participants were not allowed to reexamine texts during the comprehension test. Following the comprehension task, participants were given the Metacomprehension Scale (MCS) to ll out.
RESULTS Metacomprehension Knowledge (MCS) and Age A 2 (Age) 7 (MCS subscales) ANOVA with repeated measures on the latter factor failed to show an effect of age on the MCS ratings, F(6, 117) D 1.50, p > .05. Thus, younger and older adults gave similar ratings on the MCS subscales.
Comprehension Performance An independent t test was conducted to compare younger and older adults’ comprehension performance on the multiple-choice questions. The result indicated that younger adults had signicantly better The focus of the present paper is on the relations between adults’ metacognitive knowledge (as assessed by the MCS) and their comprehension performance and selfjudged comprehension evaluation ability. Data unrelated to these two issues examining calibration of comprehension are reported in Lin, Zabrucky, and Moore (2000).
743
Knowledge and Comprehension
comprehension performance (M D 42.15, SD D 7.56; maximum possible score D 64) than did older adults (M D 35.75, SD D 6.55; maximum possible score D 64), t(116) D 4.96, p < .0001.
Metacomprehension Knowledge (MCS) and Comprehension Performance Pearson product-moment correlation coefcients were computed to examine the relations between the MCS and comprehension performance. The coefcients between MCS subscales and comprehension performance scores are shown in the left three columns of Table 1. As can be seen in the table, the Capacity component was positively correlated to comprehension performance while the Strategy and Anxiety components were negatively correlated to performance. Simultaneous regression analyses revealed a signicant relation between all of the MCS components combined and comprehension performance, F(7, 111) D 3.96, p < .001. The MCS accounted for approximately 20% of the total variance in performance. Both Strategy (standardized coefcient D .19) and Anxiety (standardized coefcient D .29) were reliably related to performance, t(111) D 2.09, p < .05 and t(111) D 3.05, p < .01, respectively, uniquely accounting for close to 4% of the variance in performance. When simultaneous regression analyses were computed within age groups, the MCS accounted for 27% of the variance in younger adults’ performance, F(7, 52) D 2.75, p < .05, and 26% of the variance in older adults’ performance, F(7, 51) D 2.62, p < .05. The Capacity (standardized coefcient D .28) and Strategy (standardized coefcient D .26) components were reliable predictors of younger adults’ performance, t(52) D 2.08, p < .05 and t(52) D 2.06, p < .05, respectively, and each TABLE 1 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefcients Between the MCS and Comprehension Performance and Self-Perceived Comprehension Evaluation Ability (S-PCEA)
MCS
Comprehension Performance Scores Age All adults Young Old
Capacity Strategy Task Anxiety Achievement Locus Regulation p < .05.
.19 .26 .13 .34 .09 .07 .04 p < .01.
.32 .31 .05 .33 .01 .07 .18
.04 .12 .31 .29 .15 .04 .24
S-PCEA
.25 .24 .24 .26 .04 .19 .30
744
L.-M. Lin et al.
accounted for 2.9% of the variance. In contrast, the Anxiety component (standardized coefcient D .31) was a signicant predictor of older adults’ performance and accounted for 3.3% of the variance, t(51) D 2.27, p < .05. More importantly, age was found to interact with the Capacity component to predict comprehension performance, t(116) D 2.04, p < .05, indicating that the Capacity component was a signicantly better predictor of younger than older adults’ performance. Because participants read both expository and narrative passages, we also conducted Pearson product-moment correlation coefcients and simultaneous regression analyses to examine the relations between the MCS and comprehension performance within text genre. The Pearson rs are presented in Table 2. Anxiety was negatively related to comprehension of expository texts for both younger and older readers and capacity was positively related to comprehension of expository texts for younger adults only. Simultaneous regression analyses revealed that the MCS accounted for 18.9% of the variance in comprehension of expository texts, F (7, 111) D 3.70, p D .001, and 15.2% of the variance in comprehension of narrative texts, F(7, 111) D 2.83, p < .01. Anxiety (standardized coefcient D .38) was a reliable predictor of comprehension of expository texts, t(111) D 3.92, p < .0001. On the other hand, Strategy (standardized coefcient D .23) and Achievement (standardized coefcient D .20) were predictors of comprehension of narrative texts, t(111) D 2.49, p < .05 and t(111) D 1.99, p < .05, respectively. Age was found to interact with the Capacity component, t(115) D 2.29, p < .05, and the Regulation component, t(115) D 2.00, p < .05, to predict comprehension of expository texts. While the Capacity component was a reliable predictor of younger adults’ performance TABLE 2 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefcients Between the MCS and Comprehension Performance Within Text Genre and Age Group MCS
CE All Adults
CN All Adults
Young
Old
Capacity Strategy Task Anxiety Achievement Locus Regulation
.19 .17 .10 .40 .01 .04 .01
.14 .28 .12 .14 .17 .07 .05
.34 .25 .03 .41 .05 .07 .14
.07 .01 .25 .34 .00 .03 .24
CE D Comprehension of Expository Texts; p < .05. p < .01.
CE
CN Young .19 .29 .06 .11 .08 .04 .16
Old .01 .21 .24 .09 .24 .09 .14
CN D Comprehension of Narrative Texts
Knowledge and Comprehension
745
on expository texts, it failed to predict older adults’ performance. The correlation between Regulation and younger adults’ performance of expository texts and the correlation between Regulation and older adults’ performance of these texts were signicantly different from each other, indicating that the correlation for older adults was more positive. However, neither of the two correlation coefcients was significantly different from zero. Age did not interact with any of the MCS components to predict comprehension of narrative texts. Thus, the results indicated that the relations between the MCS components and comprehension performance were inuenced by the age factor only when expository texts were examined.
Self-Perceived Comprehension Evaluation Ability and Age An independent t test showed that older adults gave slightly higher ratings (M D 5.24, SD D .75) than did younger adults (M D 5.02, SD D .65) when asked to assess their overall ability to evaluate comprehension. However, these ratings were not reliably different, t(118) D 1.76, p < .10.
Metacomprehension Knowledge (MCS) and Self-Perceived Comprehension Evaluation Ability Pearson product-moment correlation coefcients were calculated to determine the relations between the MCS and self-perceived comprehension evaluation ability. The coefcients are presented in the right column of Table 1. Several MCS components were correlated with selfassessed comprehension evaluation ability. The Capacity, Strategy, Task, Locus, and Regulation components were positively correlated to the self-assessed calibration ability scale while the Anxiety component was negatively correlated to the scale. Age did not interact with the MCS to predict self-perceived comprehension evaluation ability. Simultaneous regression analyses showed that the MCS accounted for 24% of the variance in self-perceived comprehension evaluation ability, F(7, 111) D 4.96, p < .0001. Individually, Strategy (standardized coefcient D .22), t(111) D 2.46, p < .05, Anxiety (standardized coefcient D .22), t(111) D 2.40, p < .05, and Regulation (standardized coefcient D .24), t(111) D 2.40, p < .05, were reliable predictors of self-perceived comprehension evaluation ability, with each uniquely accounting for close to 2% of the variance.
746
L.-M. Lin et al.
DISCUSSION In the present study, we examined the relation between adults’ metacomprehension knowledge (MCS) and their comprehension of expository and narrative texts. The results showed that adults’ metacomprehension knowledge is related to their comprehension performance. The shared variance between the MCS and comprehension performance was 20 percent, which is consistent with the amount of shared variance reported by Moore and others (1997a, 1997b). As they (1997a, 1997b) pointed out, the range of shared variances reported in previous studies in which the relation between metamemory and memory performance was examined was 0 to 10% (e.g., Cavanaugh & Poon, 1989; Hertzog, Dixon, & Hultsch, 1990). The results of our study indicate that self-reported metacomprehension knowledge assessed by the MCS is a reliable predictor of comprehension performance. Age-related differences were found in the measures of capacity (i.e., self-assessed comprehension ability) and regulation as predictors of comprehension performance. The capacity measure best predicted young adults’ performance, indicating that high self-assessed comprehension ability was related to good comprehension performance. Yet, the capacity measure did not relate to older adults’ performance. When we examined the inuence of capacity within text genre type, an age-bycapacity interaction was found for the comprehension of expository but not narrative texts. Previous research has shown that self-perceived cognitive ability is an important component of cognitive self-efcacy and may directly relate to cognitive performance (Cavanaugh & Poon, 1989; Hertzog et al., 1990; Hertzog, Hultsch, & Dixon, 1989). Our nding suggests that self-assessed cognitive competence plays a more essential role in younger than older adults’ cognition and is better at predicting comprehension of expository than narrative texts. Additionally, an age difference in the relation between regulation and comprehension was also found for expository texts, revealing a stronger positive relationship for older adults. However, since regulation was not related to comprehension performance (a point discussed further below), we hesitate to attach importance to the age difference found here. In the present study, anxiety associated with comprehension performance was found to be a consistent predictor of comprehension performance for both younger and older adults, indicating that low anxiety was related to good performance. In fact, for older adults, performance was best accounted for by the anxiety component. These results are consistent with the evidence provided in the metamemory literature, which suggests that older adults’ cognitive performance may be more related to affective dimensions and thus more likely to
Knowledge and Comprehension
747
be inuenced by domain-specic anxiety (Davidson, Dixon, & Hultsch, 1991). Interestingly, when the relation between the anxiety measure and comprehension performance was examined within text genre, the level of anxiety one expressed about performing comprehension tasks was a reliable predictor of comprehension of expository texts for both age groups but was not related to the comprehension of narrative texts. Our results suggest that the amount of anxiety individuals experience when reading for understanding is an important predictor of their comprehension of texts that are cognitively demanding. A perplexing nding in the present study is that the strategy component (i.e., use of reading techniques to improve comprehension) was negatively related to comprehension performance. One would expect that greater use of effective reading skills, such as scanning material before reading or searching for key words/information for understanding, should improve rather than hinder comprehension. Additionally, contrary to previous research (Moore et al., 1997a, 1997b), the regulation component was unrelated to comprehension performance. However, since participants were told to read each passage only once, a procedure that varied from previous studies, the performance of individuals who rely more on strategy and regulation may have been hindered. As previously noted, Baker and Brown (1984) have suggested that metacognition consists of two separate concepts. One is knowledge about a particular cognitive process, such as metacomprehension knowledge, and the other is regulation of a particular cognitive processes, such as evaluation of comprehension and use of x up strategies during reading to better comprehend. Schraw (1994) has recently suggested that self-perception of monitoring ability (e.g., evaluating test performance or comprehension) may rely mainly on knowledge of one’s cognition, such as knowing one’s strengths and weaknesses as a learner. In the present study, we found that metacomprehension knowledge measured by the MCS is related to self-perceived comprehension evaluation ability in both younger and older adults, which supports the notion that self-estimation of cognitive evaluation ability requires knowledge of cognition (Schraw, 1994). Specically, individuals who rated themselves high on comprehension evaluation ability tended to have high self-perceived comprehension ability (Capacity), reported using reading techniques (Strategy), possessed knowledge of basic comprehension processes (Task), had internal control beliefs (Locus), and reported the use of strategies to solve comprehension failures (Regulation). On the other hand, individuals who had low selfperceived comprehension evaluation ability tended to report having feelings of stress when performing comprehension tasks (Anxiety). The
748
L.-M. Lin et al.
measures of anxiety, strategy, and regulation were particularly useful in predicting self-perceptions of comprehension evaluation ability.
CONCLUSIONS Consistent with previous research (Moore and others 1997a, 1997b), results of the present study showed that individuals’ general metacomprehension knowledge (measured by the MCS) reliably predicts their comprehension performance, indicating that greater self-reported comprehension knowledge is related to better performance. Furthermore, ndings of our study contribute to the understanding of the relation between metacomprehension knowledge and comprehension performance in different age groups as well as different types of texts. The capacity component of metacomprehension knowledge appears to be a better predictor for younger than older adults’ comprehension of expository texts and adults’ anxiety level is a signicant predictor of their comprehension of expository texts as well. Overall, comprehension knowledge seems to be far more important for predicting comprehension of expository than of narrative texts. Finally, metacomprehension knowledge is related to self-perceived comprehension evaluation ability. Individuals who perceive themselves as having more knowledge about comprehension also believe that they are more capable of evaluating comprehension.
REFERENCES Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Rosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman. Britton, G. K., Glynn, S. M., & Smith, J. W. (1985). Cognitive demands of processing expository text: A cognitive workbench model. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.). Understanding expository text (pp. 250– 265). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Budd, D., Whitney, P., & Turley, K. J. (1995). Individual differences in working memory strategies for reading expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23, 735–748. Cavanaugh, J. C., & Poon, L. W. (1989). Metamemorial predictors of memory performance in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4, 365– 368. Davidson, H. A., Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1991). Memory anxiety and memory performance in adulthood. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 423– 434. Dixon, R. A., Hertzog, C., & Hultsch, D. F. (1986). The multiple relationships among Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) scales and cognitive abilities in adulthood. Human Learning, 5, 165–177. Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1983). Structure and development of metamemory in adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 38, 682–688. Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1984). The Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) instrument. Psychological Documents, 14, 3.
Knowledge and Comprehension
749
Hertzog, C., Dixon, R. A., & Hultsch, D. F. (1990). Relationships between metamemory, memory predictions, and memory task performance in adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 215– 227. Hertzog, C., Hultsch, D. F., & Dixon, R. A. (1989) Evidence for the convergent validity of two self-report metamemory questionnaires. Developmental Psychology, 25, 687–700. Hultsch, D. F., Hertzog, D., Dixon, R. A., & Davidson, H. (1988). Memory self-knowledge and self-efcacy in the aged. In M. L. Howe & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Cognitive development in adulthood: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 65– 92). New York: Springer. Hynd, C. R., & Chase, N. D. (1991). The relation between text type, tone, and written response. Journal of Reading Behavior, 3, 281– 306. Lin, L., Zabrucky, K. M., & Moore, D. (2000). Effects of Text Difculty and Adults’ Age on Calibration of Comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication. Moore, D., Zabrucky, K., Commander, N. E. (1997a). Validation of the metacomprehension scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 457–471. Moore, D., Zabrucky, K., Commander, N. E. (1997b). Metacomprehension and comprehension performance in younger and older adults. Educational Gerontology , 23, 467– 475. Petros, T. V., Norgaard, L., Olson, K., & Tabor, L. (1989). Effects of text genre and verbal ability on adult age differences in sensitivity to text structure. Psychology and Aging, 4, 247– 250. Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143–154. Schraw, G. (1997). The effect of generalized metacognitive knowledge on test performance and condence judgments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(2), 135–146. Schunk, D. H. (1995). Inherent details of self-regulated learning include student perceptions. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 213– 216. Spiro, R. J., & Taylor, B. M. (1987). On investigating children’s transition from narrative to expository discourse: The multidimensional nature of psychological text classication. In R. J. Tierney, P. L. Anders, & J. N. Mitchell (Eds). Understanding readers’ understanding: Theory and practice (pp. 77– 93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tun, P. A. (1989). Age differences in processing expository and narrative texts. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 44, P9– P15. Weaver, C. A. III., & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difculty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23(1), 12 –22. Zabrucky, K., & Moore, D. (1994). Contributions of working memory and evaluation and regulation of understanding to adults’ recall of texts. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 201– 212. Zelinski, E. M., Gilewski, M. J., & Thompson, L. W. (1980). Do laboratory tests relate to self-assessment of memory ability in the young and old? In L. W. Poon, J. L. Fozard, L. S. Cermak, D. Arenberg, & L. W. Thompson (Eds.), New directions in memory and aging (pp. 519– 544). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
