The impact of metamemory on reading performance. (Language Teaching & Learning).

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine 1) if a metamemory approach to reading instruction would lead to significantly different results from those of a skill-oriented approach, and 2) whether short-term memory (STM) span is an independent determining factor or it is modified by the reader's metamemory knowledge. Seventy-six college students were randomly selected and assigned to the two experimental and control groups. One group was taught through a metamemory approach and the other through a skill-oriented one. The treatment took about four months and a half, and a twelve-branch memory maze and The Nelson's Reading Comprehension Test were used as the STM span and the reading comprehension tests respectively. The findings of the ANOVA used lend support to the notion that a metamemory approach is superior to a skill-oriented one. They also indicate that STM span is not an independent predictor of reading comprehension performance. Moreover, the statistical evidence provided through the application of the Point Biserial Correlation to the pre-tests of reading comprehension and STM span indicate that there is no significant go-togetherness between STM span and performance on reading comprehension tests.

**********

The majority of the studies conducted on reading focus on the product of reading, that is, the decoding of words or the comprehension of texts rather than its process. However, a number of researchers have more recently focused their attention on the underlying aspect of reading, namely its process (e.g., Carpenter, 1987; Hasselhorn, 1991; Whitney, 1991). Metamemory, as one of the consequences of this shift, has gained a particular, and at the same time, controversial status. Originally, Flavell (1971) used the term metamemory to denote knowledge of memory. Following this, researchers started to conduct various studies on metamemory: Moynahan (1973) asked Ss about the relative difficulty of different tasks.

Brown (1978) studied how Ss monitored their own memory attempts. Brown & Smiley (1978) investigated students' use of strategies and found that active strategy users have superior recall to those students who simply re-read the text. Murphy and Schmitt (1987) found that strategies such as self-testing can be easily taught, and they hold promise of being useful in different situations. Gearg, Adrales & Klosterman (1990) found consistent correlation between metamemory and academic achievement. The variety of the areas where metamemory has been applied has been well manifested in Klatzky's (1984) classification of three general types of metamemory or awareness of memory: Conscious awareness of the mental processes in which one is engaged (e.g., rehearsal and organization); awareness of the contents that are stored in memory (the material one decides to encode); and awareness about memory as a human capacity. According to Klatzky (1984), a successful metamemory knowledge comprises all the three mentioned forms.

Hasselhorn (1992) maintains that metamemory establishes a substantive positive relationship between memory monitoring and memory performance. What this indicates is that memory performance is the focus of attention in metamemory studies. In other words, studies in this area aim at improving memory performance by resorting to certain types of intervention.

Now, if we assume, as other studies have done so, that metamemory influences memory performance, the question is what is meant by "memory". The first answer (model) to this apparently simple question was presented by Atkinson & Shiffrin (1971), who theorized that there are three memory stores -- a sensory register, a short-term and a long-term store, and who hypothesized that these memory stores are considered to be the permanent, built-in components of the information processing system. The idea of having fixed built-in memory stores gave rise to the public opinion that the individual's memory performance is not influenced by circumstances but by the individual's static memory span. However, further counterevidence indicated that revisions had to be made to the original model. Among these, we can name Baddeley & Hitch's (1974) suggestion that we should replace the idea of separate short- and long-term stores with a single permanent store, part of which is activated and becomes "working memory" (WM) when the incoming information is being processed.

Working memory (with a focus on activation) in this conceptualization fulfils the same function as short-term memory (with a focus on time) in the original model. Along with the mentioned line of thought, a number of researchers such as Haenggi & Perfetti (1992) emphasize that STM cannot be considered as indicative of an individual's capability of memory performance; what determines one's functioning is that part of memory which is activated by the system. Thus, metamemory is not supposed to improve STM or LTM but WM. In fact, at present, ample evidence suggests that the label "working memory" is a better one (e.g, Cantor & Engle, 1993). Then, the assumption is that working memory is influenced by activation which is supposedly the part played by one's memory awareness or metamemory. To sum up, so far we have learned that metamemory is assumed to enhance WM capacity. However, a new question arises now; Does WM capacity influence reading performance?

This question, in mm, brings us closer to a touch upon what is meant by reading. Goodman's (1970) "psycholinguistic guessing game" was similarly described by Long & Richards (1987), who assert the following:

   The better the reader is able to make correct predictions, the less
   confirming via the text is necessary, that is, the less visual perceptual
   information the reader requires. (P. 219)

While reading a text, the successful reader makes more correct predictions which means that he will resort to certain knowledge already possessed by him. To refer to clusters of related items of knowledge (background knowledge), the term schema has been used by a number of cognitive psychologists. The advocates of Schema theory believe that the text does nothing but provide the reader with directions as to how to retrieve or construct from his own previously acquired knowledge (Long & Richards, 1987). According to schema theory, under two circumstances, the reader will encounter problems interpreting the text. First, if he cannot activate his own relevant schema (or if he does not have the needed schema). Second, if the writer has not provided the reader with the necessary clues to activate an appropriate schema (formal or content), which determines his degree of non-comprehension (Rumelhart, 1986). Also, Mishra and Sahu (1992) concluded that the subjects with a higher working memory capacity performed better than those with a low working memory capacity on oral reading and reading comprehension. One connotation of all this is that the degree of the activation of one's knowledge contributes to one's reading performance, which is definitely what is claimed to be implemented by metamemory.

In the present investigation, a comparison was made between the reading performance of those students taught through a metamemory approach and that of those who were taught through the traditional skill-oriented approach to reading instruction to answer the following questions:

() Are a metamemory approach and a skill-oriented one differently effective in improving EFL Ss' RC?

() Is STM span an independent predictor of future RC performance?

() Does the combination of STM span and method (metamemory vs. skill-oriented) have any significant role in improving EFL Ss' RC?

() Do STM span and RC performance generally have any correlation?

Method

Subjects

Seventy-six sophomores majoring in English were randomly assigned to two equal groups each containing 38 females aging from 18 to 27.

Materials and Procedures

Level C of the Nelson Standard Test of Reading (NSTR) comprising 70 items was used to measure the Ss' reading comprehension ability. This test was used as a pre-test and also as a post-test. Ganji's (1993) 12-branch maze, which has been standardized for Iranian college students, was used as the WM span test. The reliability of this measure (.70) was calculated through the test-retest method with an interval of 16 days by the use of Spearman rank-order correlation (Rho). The validity of this measure was also calculated by comparing its results with those of Miller's digit span test through criterion-related validity with the outcome of .78. The reliability of the reading comprehension test calculated by KR21 also turned out to be .83.

As regards the procedures, for the NTRC, students were given 45 minutes to go through the whole test. On the WM span test, a long period of time had to be spent. As the test developer advises, a 6-branch maze was first introduced to all Ss at the same time to familiarize them with the whole process. Later, they were all sent to another room where an English movie was shown. To conduct the test individually, Ss were called out one by one and were sent home to prevent them from passing the information related to the test procedure to their classmates. The purpose of showing the film was to prevent the Ss from practicing the test while one student was being tested.

For the implementation of methods, the two approaches to reading were operationally defined as follows: The material for both groups was the same series of reading passages in the form of two-page handouts. These were all taken from Interactions Series (1989). In the skill-oriented group, the objectives were determined to be almost identical to what Elaine Kirn & Darcy Jack (1984) enumerate for this type of reading instruction. These include the improvement of skimming, scanning, total comprehension, and critical reading which were actually manifested in timed class activities such as guessing meaning from context, getting the main ideas as well as the major and minor ideas of texts, using the dictionary, left-to-right eye movements, slash (chunked) reading, and increasing reading speed. Some activities were also common in two groups, e.g., building up vocabulary, analyzing grammatical structures, and answering comprehension questions.

For the metamemory group, the guidelines provided by Klatzky (1984) were followed. Each session covered a 15-t0-20 minute discussion of memory structures, processes and personal experiences (Ss' verbal reports) regarding the two. Later on, Ss would be given the new passage to work on. Memory planning, prediction of memory performance, memory evaluation and memory monitoring were the main concerns of the reading activities. Time limitations were imposed on the Ss while they were to read and comprehend a passage.

Working on making inferences and extracting implicit knowledge was also considered every session. The main assumption underlying all activities was that active strategy use was superior to simple re-reading of a text. Both groups attended 19 90-minute sessions during the study.

Results and Discussion

For the first question, a 2-way ANOVA was conducted; A glance at table 1 illuminates the fact that the F-ratio for factor A that is method is higher than the F-critical for this level. Therefore, it can now be confirmed that method has a real influence on the EFL Ss' reading comprehension and that there is a significant difference between the metamemory and skill-oriented modes of reading instruction.

Regarding the second question of the study, back to Table 1, the F-ratio for factor B (STM span) does not exceed its critical value. We can now statistically conclude that high STM span and low STM span students have made similar gains in their reading comprehension. See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fallp.htm>.

As to the third question of the study we observe in Table 1 that the value of F for the interaction of factors A and B is much smaller than the F-critical. Thus, we can now gain more support for the significant influence of the method factors on reading comprehension.

As regards the investigation of the last question of the study, the statistical technique of point-biserial correlation was applied to the data and the correlation coefficient turned out to be. 16. The critical value for 74 d.f. at .05 level of significance is .2172. We can then conclude that there is generally no significant go-togetherness between STM span and reading comprehension ability. (Table2)

See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fallp.htm>

Regarding the RC pre-test, after it was administered, Ss were randomly assigned to the two groups so that we came up with a pair of 38 scores of RC. A t-Test was utilized to analyze the data. The observed value was smaller than the t-critical value. (Table 3) See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fallp.htm>

Considering all the analyses and results of this study, we can evidently conclude that a metamemory-based mode of reading instruction is more effective than a skill-oriented one in improving RC regardless of the Ss' STM span. As a result, it can be assumed that metamemory is a determinant of RC.

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

The evidence from this research is consistent with current relevant research studies (e.g., Klosterman & Adrales, 1990). The findings of questions 2, 3, and 4 are in agreement with Cooley & Stringers finding that memory and metamemory reflect independent variables. The result of the second question shows that STM is not a good predictor of RC performance. In other words, there is not a strong correspondence between STM span and future RC scores or we cannot estimate our Ss' future success in RC just by considering their STM span. The finding of the third question provides more support for the finding of the first question, which, in turn, reveals that an organized knowledge of memory functioning can bring about considerable results.

The result of the third question is in disagreement with the common belief that high STM span learners benefit more from a metamemory-based program. Students are obviously different and one of their many sources of differences would be their awareness of their memory system. As regards teaching methodology, instructors can introduce valuable information related to memory functioning into the input they present the class with without having to sacrifice other normal parts of the curriculum.

As regards testing, this research suggests that testing procedures be based on the findings of metamemory. For instance, the content of graded achievement tests can be developed in a way that they gradually add to their memory functioning demands by increasing the number of propositions in the text. As to test bias, test developers should take care of metamemory differences among testees by basing part of their final evaluation on testees' metamemory performance.

The principles of syllabus design can be partly shaped by the principles of metamemory. Some pages of the book can even be devoted to short articles about memory and memory functioning. Questions following lessons can be arranged in a way that they gradually call for more memory activation to find their answers.

As regards future research, metamemory can be studied in connection with other language skills. A longitudinal study might be a good start to hypothesize that metamemory is caused by progress in RC not vice versa. Other studies can control for more variables such as language background, major field of study, age, and attitudes to find more sources of differences of metamemory among learners. Single case studies can reveal many of the processes underlying metamemory application.

References

Adrales, K. (1990). Metamemory and academic achievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 151/4 439-450.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed). The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic.

Cantor, J. (1993). Working memory capacity as long-term memory activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, and Cognition. 19/5 1011-1114

Carpenter, P. (1987). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, and Cognition. 13/2 278-290.

Cooley, E. (1991). Self and observer predictions of memory performance. Journal of Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 6.4 335-362

Kirn, E. & Jack, D. (1984). Interactions: Reading skills series. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

Fletcher, C. (1988). Causal reasoning in the comprehension of simple narrative texts. Journal of Memory and Language. 27/3 235-244.

Haenggi, D. (1992). Individual differences in reprocessing texts. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84/2 182-192.

Hasselhorn, M. (1990). The emergence of strategic knowledge activation in categorical clustering during retrieval. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 50/1 59-80.

Hasselhorn, M. (1991). Training organization strategies. Journal of Developmental Research. 21/4 110-112.

Hasselhorn, M. (1992). Task dependency and the role of category typicality and metamemory in the development of an organizational strategy. Journal of Child Development. 63/1 202-214.

Hermann, D. (1986). Awareness of memory ability before and after relevant memory experience. Human Learning Journal of Practical Research and Applications. 55/2 91-107.

Masson, M. (1983). Working memory and individual differences in comprehension and memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology. 314-318.

Mishra, S. (1992). Working memory capacity and reading. Journal of Psycholingua. 22/2 331-339.

O'Sullivan, J. (1993). Preschoolers' beliefs about effort, incentives, and recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 55/3 396-414.

Perfetti, C. (1976). Discourse memory and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 15/1 33-42.

Siegel, L. (1988). Development of grammatical sensitivity, phonological and short-term memory skills. Journal of Developmental Psychology. 24/1 28-37.

Squire, L. (1989). Memory and metamemory. Journal of Psychobiology. 17/1 3-11.

Swanson, H. (1987). The influence of verbal ability and metamemory on future recall. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 57/2 179-190.

Swanson, H. (1993). The individual differences in working memory. Journal of Intelligence. 17/3 285-332.

Turner, L. (1980). Attributional retraining and teaching of strategies. Journal of Exceptional Children. 53/2 130-137.

Whitney, P. (1991). Working memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension. Journal of Discourse-processing. 14/2 133-145.

Gholam Reza Haji Por Nezhad, Tehran University, Iran

Gholam Reza, Ph.D. in TEFL, has published a number of articles and presentations on Reading Comprehension Language.