The Effects on Adjunct Questions on Short and Long-Term Recall of Prose Materials

Natkin, Gerald; Stahler, Elizabeth

doi:10.2307/1161861

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Swenson and Kulhavy (1974), Hiller (1974), Boker (1974), and Sanders (1973) all reported evidence that the pattern of posttest results is similar for immediate and delayed tests. Natkin and Stahler (1969) reported facilitation by inserted questions on a delayed test, but their data also suggested that arousal level may be important here, with high arousal during learning leading to superior long-term retention.…”

Section: Inserted Questionsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Mathemagenic Behaviours and Efficiency in Learning from Prose Materials: Review, Critique and Recommendations

Faw

Waller

1976

Review of Educational Research

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Inserted Questionsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Mathemagenic Behaviours and Efficiency in Learning from Prose Materials: Review, Critique and Recommendations

Faw

Waller

1976

Review of Educational Research

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In these 14 studies, the size of adjunct-question effects in the immediate tests was of the same magnitude as the effects in delayed tests. An interaction found by Natkin and Stahler (1969) seemed to be of interest, but a systematic effort by Wyatts (1973) to replicate it failed completely. Other studies came up with no interactions, or significant but uninterpretable interactions (Rickards, 1976a;Sanders, 1973;Swenson & Kulhavy, 1974).…”

Section: Other Design Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Adjunct Questions on Prose Learning

Hamaker

1986

Review of Educational Research

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research literature on the effects of factual and higher order adjunct questions is reviewed. The influence of 13 design variables on the direction and size of adjunct-questions effects was investigated. Adjunct questions of all cognitive levels have a strong facultative effect on repeated test questions and a weaker effect on test questions related to the adjunct questions. Unrelated test questions are affected negatively by factual prequestions and by factual postquestions when study time is controlled. Factual postquestions have a positive effect on unrelated questions only when no time restrictions are imposed. Effect sizes are found to be related to text length, density of adjunct questions, adjunctquestion format, test-question format, and the level of performance in the control group; they are unrelated to subjects' age, the interval between reading task and test, whether or not subjects are allowed to consult the text while answering the adjunct questions, and the average distance between adjunct questions and relevant text information. When compared to factual adjunct questions, higher order adjunct questions lead to improved performance on repeated, related, and unrelated higher order test questions, and possibly also on unrelated factual test questions. This indicates that higher order adjunct questions may have a more general facilitative effect than factual adjunct questions. The analysis of a recent adjunct-questions study illustrates the role that review results can play in (reinterpreting experimental findings. This study is based on a portion of the author's doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Social Sciences of the University of Amsterdam.The author gratefully acknowledges the comments of Harry Vorst, and the assistance of Paul Kirschner in collecting the data. 212 at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on July 2, 2015 http://rer.aera.net Downloaded from at MOUNT ALLISON UNIV on July 2, 2015 http://rer.aera.net Downloaded from CHRISTIAAN HAMAKERcan reasonably be expected to influence positively the learning of information needed to answer the test questions. Five kinds of relationships satisfying this definition have been found in the research literature. They are as follows:1. The adjunct questions concern a restricted category of text information (e.g., proper names) and the test contains new questions about items from the same category of information (e.g., Rothkopf & Bisbicos, 1967).2. The test question covers information not directly needed to answer the adjunct questions, but supposedly reviewed while searching for an answer to a postquestion. This may be the case in adjunct inference questions (Frase, 1969(Frase, , 1970(Frase, , 1971 or when the test question is drawn from the same sentence as an adjunct question (McGaw & Grotelueschen, 1972).3. The text contains definitions of concepts or statements of general principles, and adjunct questions require the subjects to identify examples of these concepts, whereas the new test questions require the identification of new examples of the ...

show abstract

“…Sime and Boyce (1969), for example, tried to test an "increased attention" versus a reinforcement explanation of the effects of questions in a group programmed learning context: in their first experiment predictions based on the attention model were borne out, but they were unable to replicate these findings in their second study (Boyce and Sime, 1969). In a study on prose learning, Natkin and Stahler (1969) found an interaction between level of arousal and testing time: they found concepts studied under conditions of high arousal (manipulated by asking questions) were poorly recalled on initial testing but better recalled on a retention test given one week later, and that the reverse of this was true for items presented under conditions of low arousal. Narkin and Stahler's results clearly suggest that long-term retention should be considered in pre-test studies; however few investigators have looked at this.…”

Section: What Causes Pre-test Effects?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of pre-testing on post-test performance

Hartley

1973

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the present time, sharp differences of opinion exist concerning the possible and probable consequences of giving students a test before the commencement of instruction.Researchers are unclear about the effects of such "pre-tests" on subsequent learning (if any), and they are also unclear about the effects of such tests on further tests (of varying degrees of similarity and difference)given after instructional sessions. There is evidence that pre-tests can have orienting and motivational and (hence) teaching functions -in addition to the sought-for testing function.There is also evidence that these additional functions can be either general or specific. The present paper contributes to the ongoing debate by discussing the issues involved in the context of a series of experiments conducted by the author.

show abstract

The Effects on Adjunct Questions on Short and Long-Term Recall of Prose Materials

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Mathemagenic Behaviours and Efficiency in Learning from Prose Materials: Review, Critique and Recommendations

Mathemagenic Behaviours and Efficiency in Learning from Prose Materials: Review, Critique and Recommendations

The Effects of Adjunct Questions on Prose Learning

The effect of pre-testing on post-test performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About