The rereading effect: metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials

Abstract

Guided by a hypothesis that integrates principles of monitoring from a cue-based framework of metacognitive judgments with assumptions about levels of text representation derived from theories of comprehension, we discovered that rereading improves metacomprehension accuracy. In Experiments 1 and 2, the participants read texts either once or twice, rated their comprehension for each text, and then were tested on the material. In both experiments, correlations between comprehension ratings and test scores were reliably greater for participants who reread texts than for participants who read texts only once. Furthermore, in contrast to the low levels of accuracy typically reported in the literature, rereading produced relatively high levels of accuracy, with the median gamma between ratings and test performance being +.60 across participants from both experiments. Our discussion focuses on two alternative hypotheses--that improved accuracy is an artifact of when judgments are collected or that it results from increased reliability of test performance--and on evidence that is inconsistent with these explanations for the rereading effect.