Context, isolation, and interference effects on the retention of fact.

Abstract

112 4th and 5th grade children were given 5 facts to learn and remember in a science lesson. Several different kinds of presentation were employed, including massed and spaced accompanying contexts containing; (1) a related superordinate fact in the form of a topic sentence, (2) coordinate facts, (3) unrelated facts, and (4) an "isolated" presentation condition containing no context facts. Retention of the facts was measured primarily by recall scores obtained by having Ss complete blanks in paraphrased sentences. Results indicated significant effects of the variables of school grade and type of context, but no significant effects of massed vs. spaced presentation. Most favorable condition for recall was 1 with no context during learning. Superordinate context was superior to coordinate, and this in turn superior to unrelated context. Results indicate the operation of interference, and also of organizing factors, in the determination of retention.

Developmental Differences in Using a Superordinate Context for the Learning and Retention of Facts

“…While there are some differences in the performance of the 5s in the two experiments, they do not appear striking. In fact, the performance of the fifth graders used by Gagne (1969), the only study of this series which found an advantage for a superordinate sentence during learning, averaged 63%. It does not appear that 5 differences caused the discrepancies.…”

“…As elaborated above, this experiment was designed to assess the developmental differences in using a superordinate context during learning. The conclusion that students of this age could use a provided superordinate context was based on the data provided by Gagne (1969) and Gagne and Weigand (1970). This study which used very similar (in many cases identical) material as Gagne and Weigand (1970) and practically identical procedures produced quite different results.…”

“…Within the area of learning by reading, this would imply that paragraphs should be constructed by stating the superordinate ideas in the first sentence (the "topic" sentence) followed by the specific subordinate ideas. Just this hypothesis' has been tested by Gagne (1969) and Gagne and Weigand (1970) in two interesting experiments. …”

“…The first sentence of each set was a topic sentence which introduced the "general idea" of the remaining four factual sentences in the set. The second group, which Gagne (1969) labeled as "coordinate" had the identical materials except that another fact (sentence) consistent with the "general idea" of the set was substituted for the topic sentence. The results showed a significant advantage for the superordinate condition.…”

“…†Now at the University of Washington. Gagne (1969) had fourth and fifth grade students learn material about howler monkeys organized in various ways. Two of his treatments are relevant here.…”