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

Abstract

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.

Cognitive capacity engagement during and following interspersed mathemagenic questions.

“…Prose passages used were those describing the mythical country of Mala (Bruning, 1968). The passages have been used extensively in mathemagenic research (e.g., Glover, Rankin, Langner, Todero, & Dinnel, 1985; Rickards, 1976; Rickards, Anderson, & McCormick, 1976; Rickards & Denner, 1978; Rickards & DiVesta, 1974).…”