Research has consistently demonstrated that learners are strikingly poor at metacognitively monitoring their learning and comprehension of texts. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to explore three important questions about metacomprehension: (a) To what extent can people accurately discriminate well-learned texts from less well learned ones? (b) What are the (meta)cognitive causes of poor metacomprehension accuracy? and (c) What interventions improve the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? In total, the meta-analysis integrated 502 effects and data from 15,889 participants across 115 studies to assess these questions. The results showed a weighted mean correlation of .178 for nonintervention effects. Many interventions were shown to be effective, such as delayed summary writing and delayed keyword generation. In addition, combining different interventions tended to generate additive benefits. The findings support the transfer-appropriate monitoring account, the situation model framework, and the poor-comprehension theory as explanations for why metacomprehension accuracy is typically poor. Practical implications are discussed.

Is metacognitive ability a predictor of creative performance? Previous studies have produced conflicting findings. To clarify whether this relationship exists, the current study used eye tracking techniques and vocal thinking reports to explore creativity differences in individuals with different levels of metacognitive ability. One hundred and twelve participants completed the Metacognitive Ability scale, and were divided into two groups (with thirty participants in each group) based on their metacognition scores (the highest and lowest 27% of metacognitive ability scores). Then, participants in both groups completed two creative thinking tasks (AUT and CCRAT) while their eye behaviors were recorded by eye tracking. The results showed that participants with high metacognitive ability were better at divergent thinking, as evidenced by greater fixation and saccade counts, as well as smaller saccade amplitudes in the AUT task. In addition, Bayesian analyses provide anecdotal evidence that participants with high metacognitive ability tended to be better at convergent thinking. Furthermore, eye tracking results demonstrated that they exhibited longer fixation duration and more fixation count on the materials in the CCRAT task. These findings reflect an important role of metacognition in creative thinking, especially in divergent thinking.