Developmental Relationship Between Metacognitive Monitoring and Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metacognitive processes are crucial components of self-regulatory ability. The study examined the developmental relationship between metacognitive monitoring and reading comprehension using longitudinal data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) in Germany. We used a cross-lagged panel analysis – in the framework of Structural Equation Modeling–to examine the reciprocal relationship between metacognitive monitoring (assessed as a retrospective judgement of one’s performance) and reading comprehension at three time points: grades 5, 7, and 9. For the overall group of participants, we consistently found longitudinal reciprocal effects between metacognitive monitoring and reading comprehension from grade 5 to 7 and grade 7 to 9. This implies monitoring accuracy leads to higher reading comprehension over time and vice versa. Although the accuracy of students’ judgement was positively and reciprocally related to reading comprehension, a multi-group cross-lagged panel analyses showed that excessive underestimation appeared to have a more hindering effect than excessive overestimation on later reading comprehension. However, moderate underestimation might be less detrimental than excessive overestimation. In addition to shedding light on the scientific debate on the complex developmental interplay between reading comprehension and metacognitive monitoring, theoretical and practical implications of the results are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".