Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
logo

Artículos de Investigación

Vol. 6 Núm. 11 (2026): Revista Simón Rodríguez

Precisión del monitoreo metacognitivo y su relación con la comprensión inferencial en estudiantes de secundaria

Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring and its relationship with inferential comprehension in secondary school students
Publicado
2026-03-11

Esta investigación se desarrolla en la educación secundaria peruana, específicamente en el distrito de Casa Grande, donde los estudiantes enfrentan desafíos en comprensión lectora y la necesidad de regular su aprendizaje ante textos complejos. el estudio determinó la relación y el efecto explicativo de la precisión del monitoreo metacognitivo sobre la comprensión inferencial en los adolescentes. Para ello, se adoptó un enfoque cuantitativo con diseño no experimental, explicativo y transversal, con una muestra de 150 estudiantes. Se empleó el inventario MARSI, una prueba basada en el test TECOLEIN y formatos de autoevaluación para registrar juicios metacognitivos. Los resultados revelaron que la mayoría de los participantes presentan niveles medios y bajos en precisión de monitoreo y capacidad inferencial, reflejando dificultades para detectar fallas de comprensión. No obstante, se identificó una relación positiva y significativa entre ambas variables ($p < .001$). El modelo de regresión confirmó que una mayor exactitud en los juicios metacognitivos incrementa la probabilidad de alcanzar niveles superiores de desempeño inferencial. Por lo tanto, se concluye que el monitoreo metacognitivo es un factor relevante y estructural para el desarrollo de la comprensión inferencial en secundaria. Esto aporta evidencia para orientar prácticas pedagógicas que fortalezcan la autorregulación lectora

This research was conducted in Peruvian secondary education, specifically in the district of Casa Grande, where students face challenges in reading comprehension and the need to regulate their learning when faced with complex texts. The study determined the relationship and explanatory effect of the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring on inferential comprehension in adolescents. To this end, a quantitative approach with a non-experimental, explanatory, and cross-sectional design was adopted, with a sample of 150 students. The MARSI inventory, a test based on the TECOLEIN test, and self-assessment formats were used to record metacognitive judgments. The results revealed that most participants had average and low levels of monitoring accuracy and inferential ability, reflecting difficulties in detecting comprehension errors. However, a positive and significant relationship was identified between both variables ($p < .001$). The regression model confirmed that greater accuracy in metacognitive judgments increases the probability of achieving higher levels of inferential performance. Therefore, it is concluded that metacognitive monitoring is a relevant and structural factor for the development of inferential comprehension in secondary school. This provides evidence to guide pedagogical practices that strengthen reading self-regulation.

Número:
Vol. 6 Núm. 11 (2026): Revista Simón Rodríguez
Sección:
Artículos de Investigación

Referencias

  1. Anggia, H., & Habók, A. (2024). University students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies (MARS) in online reading and MARS’ role in their English reading comprehension. PLOS ONE, 19(11), e0313254. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313254
  2. Bagri, G., & Abrar, S. (2024). Strategy instruction and working memory on meta-comprehension, confidence, and test prediction accuracy for expository text in students. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2372189. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2372189
  3. Barreyro, J. P., Ortíz, S. S., & Formoso, J. (2025). The role of monitoring, prior knowledge, and working memory in university students’ expository text comprehension. Psicología Educativa. https://doi.org/10.5093/psed2025a6
  4. Bruïne de Bruin, A., & Jolles, D. (2020). Minding the load or loading the mind: The effect of manipulating working memory on coherence monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language, 115, 104212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104212
  5. Clinton-Lisell, V. (2023). Investigating Reading from Screens and Mind Wandering in the Context of Standards of Coherence. Scientific Studies of Reading, 27(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2125320
  6. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. SAGE.
  7. Elleman, A. M., & Oslund, E. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339
  8. Florit, E., De Carli, P., Rodà, A., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2025). Reading from paper, computers, and tablets in the first grade: The role of comprehension monitoring. Computers and Education Open, 8, 100243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100243
  9. Florit, E., De Carli, P., Rodà, A. et al. Precursors of reading text comprehension from paper and screen in first graders: a longitudinal study. Read Writ 36, 1821–1843 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10327-w
  10. Guzmán-Simón, F., Moreno-Morilla, C., Gallardo, I., García-Jiménez, E. (2019). Las inferencias de comprensión textual y los géneros discursivos: Un estudio comparado entre Costa Rica y España. Revista de Educación, 385, 63-90. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2019-385-417
  11. Hawrot, A., Mezulis, A. H., & Kuhl, P. K. (2025). Self-assessment accuracy and learning: A meta-analytic review. Learning and Instruction, 96, 101026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101026
  12. Janssen, N., & Lazonder, A. W. (2024). Meta-analysis of interventions for monitoring accuracy in problem solving. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09936-4
  13. Khellab, F., Demirel, Ö., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2022). Effect of teaching metacognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension of engineering students. Sage Open, 12(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221138069
  14. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Liao, S., Yu, L., Kruger, J. L., & Reichle, E. D. (2024). Dynamic reading in a digital age: new insights on cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences, 28(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.002
  16. Ma, Y., Fujinami, T. (2026) Exploring the influence of strategy choice involving cognitive offloading on metacognitive judgments. Discov Psychol 6, 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-025-00539-w
  17. Mengelkamp, C., Golke, S., & Appel, M. (2025). Effects of reading goal instructions on the comprehension and metacomprehension of informative narratives. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70036
  18. Mirandola, C., Toffalini, E., Ghetti, S., & Cornoldi, C. (2018). Metacognitive monitoring of text comprehension: An individual differences perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2253. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.0225
  19. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
  20. Nadalini, A., Marzi, C., Ferro, M., Cinini, A., Cutugno, P., & Chiarella, D. (2025). Inferential reading skills in high school: A study on comprehension profiles. Education Sciences, 15(6), 654. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060654
  21. Noipa, J., & Phusawisot, P. (2024). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Instruction on Thai EFL Engineering Students: Metacognitive Strategy Use and Students’ Attitudes. World Journal of English Language, 15(2), p263. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n2p263
  22. Ruffini, C., Tarchi, C., & Pecini, C. (2023). Which executive functions affect text comprehension and writing in paper and digital mode? An investigation in primary school children. Computers & Education, 207, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104936
  23. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  24. Seitz, M., & Wirth, J. (2025). Performance judgment in mathematical and reading competence in adults. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09416-2
  25. Sergi, K., Elder, A., Wei, T., & Javorsky, K.H. (2023). Self-Regulatory Metacognitive Skill Use in Elementary Students During Computer and Paper Reading Assignments: A Qualitative Study. lnternational Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2023.310
  26. Soto, C., Gutiérrez de Blume, A. P., Jacovina, M., McNamara, D., Benson, N., & Riffo, B. (2019). Reading comprehension and metacognition: The importance of inferential skills. Cogent Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1565067
  27. Tantowie, T. A., Sunendar, D., R., & Hartati, T. (2022). The Role of Metacognition (Metacomprehension) and Inferential Ability on Reading Comprehension Ability. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(11), 262–281. https://www.ijlter.net/index.php/ijlter/article/view/1466
  28. Tibken, C., Richter, T., & Wannagat, W. (2024). Metacognitive comprehension monitoring: Cognitive abilities explain performance differences between younger and older adults. Scientific Studies of Reading. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2023.2261572
  29. van de Pol, J., Rowan, E., Janssen, E. et al. Effects of availability of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues on the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ text comprehension. Metacognition Learning 19, 635–659 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09383-0
  30. Wannagat, W., Nieding, G., & Tibken, C. (2024). Age-related decline of metacognitive comprehension monitoring in adults aged 50 and older: Effects of cognitive abilities and educational attainment. Cognitive Development, 70, 101440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101440
  31. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329