No abstract

Note taking and verbalizationare considered as instrumental student activities which influence the relationship between the learning task and the learning outcomes. Research has demonstrated no significant relationships between the type of test anticipated and the amount of notes taken. The time interval between the presentation of the instructional stimuli and the criterion test does influence the amount of notes taken with a delayed test expectancy resulting in more note taking activity than immediate test expectancy. The probability of a student recalling an item on a test is greater if that item is present in the notes than if it is not present. Studies which compared note taking to no note taking conditions have shown a facilitative effect for note taking, but the effect is influenced by type of review condition and the time interval between note taking and criterion test. Research on the effects of verbalization in instructional settings has failed to show any clear benefits for methods which involve greater student verbalization.Controlled laboratory studies have shown that overt verbalization positively influences associational learning, serial learning, and discrimination learning. Alternative theoretical explanations for the effects of note taking and verbalization are discussed, and a structure for future research on these topics is provided.Research on instruction previous to 1965 tended to emphasize a comparison of the effects of different instructional methods on specified learning outcomes. The disregard for the student activities which intervened between the instructional variables and the learning outcomes was undoubtedly a reflection of the then dominant behavioristic emphasis in the study of human behavior. Much of the early instructional research was an attempt to describe the functional relationships between the characteristics of the external instructional stimuli and the observable learning '

This study investigated the influence of dialect differences on communication between adults and children from different dialect communities. A sample of 15 adults and 24 children was selected from each of two dialect populations. Language samples were obtained from both groups of adults, and then used as stimulus materials in an immediate recall task with the two groups of children. Each stimulus list was presented by speakers from each of the dialect groups. The effect of speaker differences was significant for the standard dialect group of children but not for the nonstandard dialect group of children. The effects of source differences on recall were not clearly observable in the data. The findings suggest that some children from nonstandard dialect communities develop facility in the standard dialect at an early age.

No abstract

No abstract