The Effects of Adjunct Questions on Prose Learning

Hamaker, Christiaan

doi:10.3102/00346543056002212

Cited by 208 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Essentially, this is similar to the prequestions effect in the education literature, where providing students with a set of questions before they read an essay often facilitates learning of that essay. More specifically, the prequestions effect is characterized by enhanced recall of information specifically targeted by or related to the prequestions, whereas recall of information unrelated to the prequestions is diminished (Hamaker, 1986). The occurrence of this effect has been attributed to increased attention paid to the materials queried by the prequestions at the expense of other materials (Lewis & Mensink, 2012).…”

Section: Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Retrieval-enhanced Suggestibmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When participants were administered a cued recall initial test, their attention was drawn to the subsequent misinformation because the initial test questions foreshadowed the importance of these specific details. That is, to some extent, participants' allocation of attention was manipulated by the experimenter; just as prequestions can serve to direct students' attention to particularly important information (Hamaker, 1986). In contrast, because no specific questions were asked in the free recall test, any facilitation of misinformation learning during the postevent narrative phase cannot be attributed to experimenter-induced attention to the misinformation.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Wilford¹,

Chan²,

Tuhn³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immediately recalling a witnessed event can increase people's susceptibility to later postevent misinformation. But this retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES) effect has been shown only when the initial recall test included specific questions that reappeared on the final test. Moreover, it is unclear whether this phenomenon is affected by the centrality of event details. These limitations make it difficult to generalize RES to criminal investigations, which often begin with free recall prior to more specific queries from legal officials and attorneys. In 3 experiments, we examined the influence of test formats (free recall vs. cued recall) and centrality of event details (central vs. peripheral) on RES. In Experiment 1, both the initial and final tests were cued recall. In Experiment 2, the initial test was free recall and the final test was cued recall. In Experiment 3, both the initial and final tests were free recall. Initial testing increased misinformation reporting on the final test for peripheral details in all experiments, but the effect was significant for central details only after aggregating the data from all 3 experiments. These results show that initial free recall can produce RES, and more broadly, that free recall can potentiate subsequent learning of complex prose materials. Immediately recalling a witnessed event can increase people's susceptibility to later post-

show abstract

Section: Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Retrieval-enhanced Suggestibmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Wilford¹,

Chan²,

Tuhn³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is the case, for instance, when students are not looking for relations within the subject matter and the teacher explains these relations, or when students are not motivated and the teacher employs strategies to enhance their motivation. Friction between a strongly controlling teaching strategy and students' learning strategies may be expected to occur when students master and use a learning strategy well (Hamaker, 1986). This is the case, for example, if students are well capable of self-regulating their learning process in a particular domain but the teacher or textbook prescribes in detail what, how and in what order the student should learn.…”

Section: The Interplay Between Teacher-regulation and Student-regulatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Congruence and friction between learning and teaching

Vermunt

Verloop

1999

Learning and Instruction

646

517

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of learning and theories of teaching often originate and operate independently from one another. This article attempts to contribute to the integration of the two types of theories. First, the cognitive, affective and regulative activities students use to learn are analyzed. Next, different ways in which teachers can regulate the learning and thinking activities of students are discussed, as well as the teaching strategies they can use for that aim. The third part focuses on different ways in which student-regulation and teacher-regulation of learning act upon one another. Congruence and friction between these modes of control are discussed. From this interplay implications are derived for process-oriented teaching, aimed at promoting congruence and constructive friction, avoiding destructive friction and reducing the gap between learning and teaching.

show abstract

“…In this sense, drawing is comparable to verbally-based adjuncts that also require a learner-generated response. Examples of these include adjunct questions (e.g., Hamaker, 1986;Holliday and McGuire, 1992) and matrix notes (Kiewra et al, 1989(Kiewra et al, , 1991.…”

Section: Applying the Principles Of Strategy Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing: Literature Review and Synthesis

Meter

Garner²

2005

Educ Psychol Rev

319

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores learner-generated drawing, a strategy in which learners construct representative illustrations in support of learning goals. Both applied and empirical literature is reviewed with the purpose of stimulating research on this strategy. Clear from this review is the gap that exists between prescriptive readings on learner-generated drawing and research-based understandings. To make sense of inconsistent empirical evidence, the research review is organized around a series of hypotheses grounded in current underA hallmark of sophisticated, expert-like performance is the ability to think flexibly and to transfer knowledge across contexts. In part, this process is reliant on an underlying cognitive structure in which knowledge is integrated across varying representations (de Jong and Ferguson-Hessler, 1986;Silver, 1979) 286Van Meter and Garner (Van Someren et al., 1998). When a student can translate a data table to a linear function (Haverty et al., 2000) or use illustrated text to solve transfer problems (Mayer and Sims, 1994), that student is assessed as functioning at a higher level relative to a student who struggles with these activities. As critical as integration is, learners have a difficult time working with more than one format and integrating verbal and nonverbal representations of complex content (e.g., Scanlon, 1998;Tabachneck-Schiif and Simon, 1998). Given both the value and challenge of this process, strategies that facilitate the integration of different representations, particularly those that cross modalities, have great potential for improving student learning. Learner-generated drawing is one such strategy because drawing involves the construction of an internal, nonverbal representation that is mapped onto elements of the alternative, provided representation. The purpose of this article is to make the case that learner-generated drawing is a strategy that warrants thorough, systematic study.Although learner-generated drawing received some attention in the mid to late 1970s, research interest dried up by the mid 1980s. We believe the loss of interest is partially attributable to inconsistent findings and a body of research which, on balance, is rather disappointing. Along with the obvious value briefly stated above, there are two additional reasons for renewing interest in learner-generated drawing. First, an abundance of prescriptive publications available to classroom teachers tout learnergenerated drawing as a strategy that can meet a number of educational objectives. This is true despite a lack of evidence to support most applications. It is not that these prescriptions are necessarily wrong; rather, the research evidence addressing drawing as a learning process is inconsistent, silent, or qualifying. To highlight the distance between research and practice, the review section of this article begins with an overview of the applied literature before synthesizing the empirical research. We hope the juxtaposition of an array of implementations against scant research evidence ...

show abstract

The Effects of Adjunct Questions on Prose Learning

Cited by 208 publications

References 82 publications

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Congruence and friction between learning and teaching

The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing: Literature Review and Synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About