Abstract

We explored whether performance differences exist between proficient and poor readers on implicit text information. Next, we explored whether indices of meta-cognitive monitoring predicted reading performance. Finally, we examined whether poor and proficient readers exhibited distinct meta-cognitive profiles with respect to reading comprehension ability. Chilean undergraduate students (N = 146) completed a task on inconsistency detection within texts and a standardised reading comprehension performance measure, which we used, along with confidence in performance judgements, to calculate meta-cognitive monitoring accuracy. Our results confirmed that proficient readers outperformed poor readers on nearly all measures of interest, except global retrospective meta-cognitive monitoring judgements, and that proficient readers performed significantly better on items related to implicit information of texts than poor readers. Additionally, when combined in a single group, number of inconsistencies correctly detected and repaired and accurate global evaluation of learning judgements significantly predicted reading performance whereas retrospective global and local meta-cognitive monitoring judgements did not. Of special significance to our investigation, when separated in two groups, poor and proficient readers exhibited unique meta-cognitive profiles. Proficient and poor readers employ different meta-cognitive strategies, and poor readers benefit more from strategies than proficient readers.