Effects of orienting tasks on the retention of prose material.

Arkes, Hal R.; Schumacher, Gary M.; Gardner, Edward T.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.68.5.536

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research contrasting incidental and intentional learning paradigms has generally found that incidental and intentional recall are equivalent only if subjects are involved in organizing information during the incidental learning task (e.g.,. Arkes, Schumacher, & Gardner, 1976;Hyde & Jenkins, 1973;Mandler, 1967;Walsh & Jenkins, 1973). The issue here, however, is not the relative amounts of recall in incidental and intentional paradigms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Memory for Prose: Relational and Lexical Item-Specific Processing for Intentional Recall

Dinnel¹,

Glover²

1986

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments contrasted processing manipulations designed to focus readers' attention on sequential and relational aspects of passages with processing activities presumed to focus readers' attention on individual lexical items and the propositions in which they were embedded. Employing an intentional recall paradigm, both experiments found recall to be superior when the readers engaged in sequential and relational processing to recall when they performed individual item-specific lexical processing. These results disagree with those of previous work on individual item-specific lexical processing conducted with an incidental paradigm but agree closely with a broad range of studies that have focused on relational and sequential processing. The results are discussed in terms of differences between intentional and incidental learning paradigms.In recent years, considerable work has indicated the importance of understanding the relational and sequential aspects of texts in memory for prose. Typically, processing activities, such as listing key terms, answering lower level factual questions, and copying parts of the text-activities that focus readers' attention on superficial or highly specific elements of text-have not been effective in enhancing readers' memory for prose (e.g., Andre & Womack, 1978;Glover, Plake, Roberts, Zimmer, & Palmere, 1981). For example, Glover et al. (1981) contrasted readers' memory for text in several conditions including a key word condition, in which subjects listed "key words" found in paragraphs; a model statements condition, in which subjects identified statements in each paragraph as fitting a model; and a logical inference condition, in which readers focused on the relational aspects of paragraphs in order to draw logical inferences. The results indicated that the key words and model statements conditions obtained recall scores highly similar to those of a control group, while subjects in the logical inferences condition recalled significantly greater amounts of text. Similarly, Andre and Womack (1978) found that highly specific, lower level questions 297

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Memory for Prose: Relational and Lexical Item-Specific Processing for Intentional Recall

Dinnel¹,

Glover²

1986

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Arkes, Schumacher, and Gardner (1976) found that subjects who were asked to outline a passage (i.e., deeper analysis) performed better on recall than subjects who were asked to circle every letter e in a passage (i.e., lower level analysis).…”

Section: Levels Of Processingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Reading Strategies Training for Meaningful Learning from Prose

Cook¹,

Mayer²

1983

Springer Series in Cognitive Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Zinchenko (1961) and Arkes et al (1976) studies in so far as they employed text materials, do appear to have greater significance in this respect. Yet the conclusions of these studies are qualified to some extent by certain limitations in each.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Aside from the Zinchenko study, one further (American) study using text material has been located, that of Arkes, Shumacher & Gardner (1976). The participants were psychology undergraduates in the usual laboratory testing conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentionality versus Induced Processing in the Recall of Text

Biggs

1984

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of orienting tasks on the retention of prose material.

Cited by 13 publications

References 15 publications

Memory for Prose: Relational and Lexical Item-Specific Processing for Intentional Recall

Memory for Prose: Relational and Lexical Item-Specific Processing for Intentional Recall

Reading Strategies Training for Meaningful Learning from Prose

Intentionality versus Induced Processing in the Recall of Text

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About