Metacomprehension accuracy and regulation in multiple-document reading: On the effects of summary writing and external standards

Abstract Learning from multiple, partially conflicting documents places high demands on both comprehension and metacomprehension. This study examined how two instructional supports—a generative task and external standards—influence metacomprehension accuracy and regulation in multiple-document reading. Building on prior research showing that both supports can independently improve metacomprehension accuracy, we investigated whether combining them yields additive benefits. A total of N = 163 university undergraduates read multiple documents on a historical controversy and were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: generating forum posts and comparing them with external standards, generating forum posts only, or viewing external standards only. Participants’ metacomprehension judgments and comprehension measures were assessed for essay performance, historical content knowledge, intertextual conflicts (contradictory information across documents), and source–content links (connections between claims and their sources). Regulation was measured via re-reading intentions. The results showed that generating forum posts alone did not improve metacomprehension accuracy. When external standards were added, learners judged their essay performance more accurately than learners who received external standards only, though no benefits emerged for the other comprehension measures. Similarly, learners in the combined condition demonstrated better regulation of source–content links than the expert-only group, whereas other regulation measures were unaffected. In addition, learners relied more strongly on their self-generated forum posts as cues to their comprehension when no external standards were provided. Together, these findings provide some support for the assumption that combining generative tasks with external standards can strengthen metacomprehension accuracy in complex writing tasks. Generative tasks alone can offer learners useful cues, but external standards appear necessary to foster more accurate metacomprehension and regulation.