ABSTRACT
Cognitive psychologists and educational psychologists have not always agreed on the kinds of cognitive processes that should be included under the rubric of comprehension monitoring, nor have they always agreed on a common usage of the term comprehension monitoring. In general, cognitive psychologists have used the terminology metamemory for text, calibration of comprehension, or metacomprehension and have restricted the kinds of proc esses to those that concern prediction of whether text has been or will be understood (e.g., Glenberg & Epstein, 1985; Glenberg, Wilkinson, & Ep stein, 1982; Maki & Serra, 1992; Weaver, 1990). The concept underlying these terms often has been operationalized by relating readers’ predictions of comprehension with their actual performance on comprehension-type questions. Readers whose predictions and performance are highly correlated are judged to have good calibration of comprehension, whereas readers whose predictions and performance are minimally correlated are judged to have poor metacomprehension.
