Learning from prose material: Length of passage, knowledge of results, and position of questions.

Frase, Lawrence T.

doi:10.1037/h0025028

Cited by 123 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, with the exception of Experiment 1, no overall differences in recall or recognition were observed between questions preceding and questions following the reading material. These results are in disagreement with those of previous research that has found that orienting tasks or questions following reading materials resulted in greater levels of reader recall or recognition than questions preceding reading materials (Frase, 1967(Frase, , 1968Glover, Plake, & Zimmer, 1982). The current results may well be due to the very small amount of reading material associated with questions (brief sentences or 50 word paragraphs) and the possibility that readers could easily retain the questions in working memory while dealing with the brief segments of prose.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Memory for Sentences and Prose: Levels-of-Processing or Transfer-Appropriate-Processing?

Glover

Rankin

Langner

et al. 1985

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments were conducted in order to contrast the levels-of-processing perspective with the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective. Experiment 1 employed a within-groups design to contrast the effects of various types of questions at different positions on subjects' recognition of sentences. The results seemed to support the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective's predictions but were confounded by the form of design. Experiment 2 examined the same questions with a between-groups design, while Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 with the use of a free recall posttest. The results of both Experiments 2 and 3 seemed to support the predictions of the transferappropriate-processing perspective and disconfirm the predictions of the levels-of-processing framework. Experiment 4 extended the work to subjects' memory for paragraphs. The results of Experiment 4, however, did not match the pattern observed in Experiments 1-3 and, instead, seemed to bear out the predictions of the levels-of-processing perspective. The results are discussed in terms of the influence of experimental design, choice of study materials, choice of dependent variables, and their interaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Memory for Sentences and Prose: Levels-of-Processing or Transfer-Appropriate-Processing?

Glover

Rankin

Langner

et al. 1985

Journal of Reading Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, Ss who received written answers to questions did better than Ss who received no feedback. Frase (1967) has supported and extended the findings of Rothkopf (1967).…”

supporting

confidence: 64%

The effect of post-test relevant pre-tests and discussion-type feedback on learning and retention

Samuels

1969

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To the extent, for example, that pretesting focuses attention toward the subsequent encoding of the specific pretested information, it might draw attention away from the encoding of other information that does not remind the learner of a pretest question (Frase, 1967;Hamaker, 1986;Reynolds & Anderson, 1982;Reynolds, Standiford, & Anderson, 1979), and we postulate that such might be the case when pretested and non-pretested information is related in a competitive manner and the relationship is not established and/or brought to mind in the pretest question. By contrast, the multiple-choice format, we would argue, can serve to make the relationship between pretested and competitive non-pretested information explicit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information

Little

Bjork

2016

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the testing effect has received a substantial amount of empirical attention, such research has largely focused on the effects of tests given after study. The present research examines the effect of using tests prior to study (i.e., as pretests), focusing particularly on how pretesting influences the subsequent learning of information that is not itself pretested but that is related to the pretested information. In Experiment 1, we found that multiple-choice pretesting was better for the learning of such related information than was cued-recall pretesting or a pre-fact-study control condition. In Experiment 2, we found that the increased learning of nonpretested related information following multiple-choice testing could not be attributed to increased time allocated to that information during subsequent study. Last, in Experiment 3, we showed that the benefits of multiple-choice pretesting over cued-recall pretesting for the learning of related information persist over 48 hours, thus demonstrating the promise of multiple-choice pretesting to potentiate learning in educational contexts. A possible explanation for the observed benefits of multiple-choice pretesting for enhancing the effectiveness with which related nontested information is learned during subsequent study is discussed.Keywords Pretesting . Testing effects . Learning . Multiple choice . Test-potentiated learning That pretesting can potentiate the learning of pretested information during subsequent study has been demonstrated for a variety of materials and across a variety of methodologies (e.g., Arnold & McDermott, 2013;Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009). This finding has clear applications for learning in educational contexts (Anderson & Biddle, 1975;Kane & Anderson, 1978;Pressley, Tanenbaum, McDaniel, & Wood, 1990;Richland, Kornell, & Kao;Rothkopf, 1966). Relatively little work, however, has examined whether such pretesting can also potentiate the learning of information that was not itself pretested, or instead, whether the learning of such information might be impaired by such pretesting. This question is particularly pertinent to conditions in which such non-pretested material is related to, and thereby potentially confusable or competitive with, the specifically pretested information.The issue raised previously is important because students are often presented with large amounts of related and thus potentially confusable information (e.g., anatomy, geography, history courses), and they are sometimes pretested on subsets of that information (e.g., with Bclicker^questions presented at the beginning of a lecture), followed by more comprehensive exams that would actually count toward their grades and that would include the testing of non-pretested related information as well. Of particular interest in the present research was whether, and if so how, pretesting might improve the learning of such related, and thus possibly competitive, non-pretested information. The present research

show abstract

Learning from prose material: Length of passage, knowledge of results, and position of questions.

Cited by 123 publications

References 5 publications

Memory for Sentences and Prose: Levels-of-Processing or Transfer-Appropriate-Processing?

Memory for Sentences and Prose: Levels-of-Processing or Transfer-Appropriate-Processing?

The effect of post-test relevant pre-tests and discussion-type feedback on learning and retention

Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About