Metacognition of reading

Definition of Metacognition

First of all, what is metacognition?

• To put it in a simple way it means « thinking about thinking » (Anderson, 2002)
• According to Byrd, Carter, and Waddoups (2001), it is self-awareness of mental process.

So, it refers to both the knowledge and the control over your own thinking and learning, an awareness and understanding of one’s own thought processes

According to some studies there are four variables in the metacognition of reading: (Brown Campione and Day,1981/ Flavell and Wellman,1977)

1. The text – features of the material that has to be learned (difficulty,familiarity,interest..etc)

2. The task – the act of memorizing by the reader.

3. The strategies- which we will discuss later on.

4. The learner's characteristics- ability,motivation

The metacognitive strategies of learning/reading involve processes such as:

• Planning: assessing knowledge before reading : What don’t I know? What do I need from this text ?

• Monitoring: literal reading isn’t enough, connections have to be made in between prior knowledge and the read text: Do I understand what I just read ? We thereby determine whether that new information is relevant or not

• Summarizing/Evaluating: Is what I am doing working?

Reading strategies

We can differentiate various reading strategies: (Pressley & Afflerbach-1995)

1. overview before reading (chuncking/pre-segmenting the reading time)
2. look for important information and pay greater attention to it (highlighting words)
3. relate important points to one another
4. activate and use prior knowledge(combining knowledge)
5. change strategies when understanding is not good (read out loud...)
6. monitor understanding and take action to correct inaccuracies in comprehension.(margin notes)

Studies show that unsuccessful students lack this strategic approach to reading (Garcia, Jimenez, & Pearson, 1998).

It was also found that dyslexic readers (poor text comprehension and spelling abilities) frequently use metacognitive strategies as a compensation to try and understand the text better (Kirby et al.2008).

Those reading techniques can be studied statistically:

For this, we took a population of 60 individuals (48 women; 12 men), all second year veterinary students. This ratio of 80%/20% can be considered representative of the class (which is our 'population' here).

Throughout a poll, we collected data concerning the main reading techniques. The frequency proportions of reading techniques (in each gender) are displayed in the following Mosaicplot:

• 

• Chunking (or dividing): a sentence is put into phrases by slashes

• Combining notes: making/gathering notes from different sources (books, internet, former students’ notes…)

• Margin notes: annotations within the margin, arrow pointing at some specific parts of the text…

We can observe that the distributions (of frequencies here) are similar in between women and men, even though no male individual of the study chose "Read out loud" as a main reading technique.

We can now realise a Fisher test in order to verify if there is a link in between sexe and adopted reading techniques:

The p-value in a Fisher test is based on the null hypothesis of independence of reading technique and gender. Here, our p-value is 0.5602. Since p>0.05, we cannot rightfully reject this null hypothesis, i.e: we cannot prove that there is (or not) an influence of the gender on the reading technique.

We could also study the correlation in between the chosen reading techniques and the results obtained at examinations:

In Metacognition in Reading-Midori Shikano (2016), the qualitative study is based of 44 Japanese L2 learners at the university level.

We can differentiate:

• 15 participants who scored 1/3 in a summary quiz: so-called "less efficient readers"

• 10 participants who scored 3/3 in the same quiz: so-called "efficient readers"

  • 

In this study, we see a net difference in reading techniques according to the efficiency of the reader. We could then suppose that highlighting words, underlining sentences and making margin notes would be more efficient than chuncking.

Through this statistical approaches we could classify reading techniques in accordance to the efficiency they can provide.

Metacognition of reading and the brain

Looking for the part of the brain responsible for metacognition is like looking for the holy grail.

We don't yet know how it really works. What we know is that the Anterior Cingulate Cortex = ACC is involved in metacognition according to the studies of Jing,Niki and philips (2004). They performed the « Aha » experience (the feeling you get when understanding the solution to a problem after spending a lot of time trying to solve it), using MRI imaging to show which parts of the brain were activated in the process. They have shown that the ACC is related to metacognition & understanding.

It is also clear that the frontal lobes -especially in the prefrontal cortex- are essential in metacognition. (Pannu and Kaszniak,2005). It has been shown that patients with with frontal lobe damage have an impaired metacognition. (Shimamura and Squire,1986).

Neuroimaging studies showed that prefrontal cortex is active during judgments of learning, feeling of knowing and tip of the tongue states. It was also shown that some drugs impair metacognition, like benzodiazepines, inducing a mild amnesia.(Bacon,Schwartz et al.,2007)

There is a region in the brain that stays a mystery for scientists but has shown some connection to the human consciousnes: The Claustrum is a thin sheet of grey matter highly connected to the rest of the brain. Its name means « hidden away » (Crick and Koch,2005) because it is hidden in the inner surface of the neocortex in the center of the brain.

Extensive neuron projections have been discovered between the claustrum and the cortex, making it possible to achieve many higher cognitive functions. _ Buchanan and Johnson (2011); Crick and Koch (2005); Minciacchi et al. (1995); Tanne-Gariepy et al. (2002); Wilhite et al. (1986)

The claustrum also has connections to subcortical structures _ Arikuni and Kubota (1985); Berke (1960); Buchanan and Johnson (2011); Crick and Koch (2005); Salerno et al. (1984); Tanne-Gariepy et al. (2002)

The claustrum would be involved in receiving, assimilating, integrating, and channeling information throughout the brain _ Edelstein and Denaro, (2004'); Remedios et al. (2014)

References

Arthur P. Shimamura (2000) - 'Toward a Cognitive Neuroscience of metacognition

• Carinna M.Torgerson, Andrei Irimia , S.Y.Matthew Goh and John Darrell Van Horn (2015) - The DTI connectivity of the human claustrum

  Metacognitive neuroscience, Benett L.Schwartz and Elisabeth Bacon, from Handbook of metamemory and reading, edited by John Dunlosky and Robert A. Bjork (2008).