Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Explicit and implicit memory assessment for elaborative instruction: a processing account for instruction… Harrison, Gina Louise 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0443.pdf [ 2.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087489.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087489-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087489-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087489-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087489-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087489-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087489-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087489-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087489.ris

Full Text

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT MEMORY ASSESSMENT FOR ELABORATIVE INSTRUCTION: A PROCESSING ACCOUNT FOR INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT IN THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM by GINA LOUISE HARRISON B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JULY, 1994 © Gina Louise Harrison, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, 1 agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Fd^cccha^d rkyclrvha^^ ^ p c c ^ L & L The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada D*e 3VUj if., mM--DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Explicit memory tests require the deliberate recollection of recently presented material and are defined by having students think back to a previous instructional episode. Implicit memory tests do not require students to deliberately retrieve recently presented material, rather students are asked to name whatever comes to mind when given a cue of some kind. The amount of information retrieved in this manner (which reflects previously presented content) represents the amount of priming or transfer from the previous instructional episode. Elaborative instructional processing (making meaningful associations between to-be-learned material) has been reported to create differential performance effects, known as dissociations, between explicit and implicit tests. Lab research suggests that performance on both tests may be increased with elaborative processing, but that implicit tests are significantly less affected. Likewise, instructional strategies that incorporate elaborative questioning techniques into classroom instruction, have been found to increase student performance on explicit-type tests. Processing dissociations between explicit and implicit tests have been explained by adapting the framework of Transfer Appropriate Processing (T.A.P.), emphasizing the overlap in instruction and retrieval processes engaged by students as best predicting memory performance. Processing theorists have postulated that dissociations between explicit and implicit tests due to elaborative processing may be explained by the task requirements of particular explicit and implicit tests. Explicit tests generally require elaborative processing and benefit from elaboration during instruction. Implicit tests generally require integrative processing (e.g. perceiving relations between implicit test cues and instructional targets) and benefit less from elaborative instruction. The present study was designed to examine how an elaborative questioning strategy would affect students' memory for instructional information, measured with an explicit and iii implicit test. Importantly, would there be an increase to performance on both tests due to elaborative instruction and would there be a dissociation found evidenced by greater benefits to explicit over implicit test performance? Forty-four students from grades 3 and 4 were randomly paired with a classmate during instruction, and were presented 12 facts about outer space in one of two instructional conditions: (non-elaborative) read aloud or (elaborative) interrogative elaboration. Students in the read aloud condition were instructed to read out loud, slowly and carefully with the experimenter, each of the 12 space facts. Students in the interrogative elaboration condition were instructed to read out loud with the experimenter each of the space facts, and were asked three questions after each fact requiring a "yes" or "no" response. After all the space facts and questions had been completed, students made a poster about the facts. The following day, students were tested individually with an explicit and implicit memory test. The explicit test required students to think back to yesterday, and recall as many of the facts about space that they could remember. For the implicit test, students were read a brief story (about 50 words) ending with a question requiring students to name five members of a particular space category. Performance on both tests was significantly greater in the interrogative elaboration condition than in the read aloud condition; however, no evidence of a processing dissociation was found— that is explicit and implicit test performance did not vary. It was concluded, congruent with the T.A.P. processing framework, that in the classroom setting the overlap in processing between instruction and testing was a greater determinant of memory performance on both tests than was the deliberate (explicit) or non-deliberate (implicit) access to retrieve the instructional material. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF FIGURES vi ACKNOWLEDGMENT vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 A. Rationale 1 B. Problem Statement 2 C. Purpose of the Study 4 D. Hypotheses 4 CHAPTER 2: EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT MEMORY ASSESSMENT: RESEARCH, THEORY, AND EXTENSIONS INTO EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS 6 A. Introduction 6 B. Explicit and Implicit Memory Assessment 7 (1) Explicit Measures of Memory 7 (2) Implicit Measures of Memory 8 C. Differences in Memory Performance Across Explicit and Implicit Tests 9 (1) Differences due to Retrieval Instructions 9 (2) Developmental Differences 10 (3) Differences due to Learning Disabilities 11 (4) Differences due to Materials 12 (5) Differences due to Tasks 13 D. Theoretical Accounts 16 (1) Systems Accounts 16 (2) Processing Accounts 18 E. Strategy Instruction and Memory Research: Complementary Findings 20 F. Summary of the Background Research and Purpose of the Present Study 24 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 25 A. Introduction 25 B. Participants 25 C. Materials and Design 26 (1) Materials 26 (2) Design 27 D. Procedure 27 (1) Instruction 27 (2) Testing 28 E. Data Preparation and Scoring 29 (1) Dependent Variables 29 (2) Baseline Measure 30 (3) Calculation of Priming 30 (4) Scores across Items and Categories 30 F. Summary and Directional Predictions 30 V CHAPTER 4: R E S U L T S 31 A. Introduction 31 B. Preliminary Analyses 31 (1) Class Effects 31 C. Effects of Instructional Processing 33 (1) Interaction Effects 33 (2) Main Effects: Explicit and Implicit Measures 33 D. Summary 35 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 36 A. Introduction 36 B. Discussion 36 C. Methodological Issues and Directions for Future Research 38 (1) Methodological Issues 38 (2) Directions for Future Research 40 D. Educational Implications 41 E. Conclusions 42 REFERENCES 44 Appendix A: Target Space Fact Items 49 Appendix B: Space Fact Questions- Interrogative Elaboration Condition 50 Appendix C: Composition of Stimulus Cards 54 Appendix D: Directions for Instruction across Conditions 55 Appendix E: Stories and Questions for the Implicit Test 56 AppendixF: Analysis of Variance Tables 58 Appendix G: Mean Percent of Target Items Produced Across Categories and Classes.... 61 Appendix H: Frequency of Items Recalled and Produced Across Categories 62 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Mean Proportion of Space Facts Recalled across Instructional Conditions 34 FIGURE 2 Mean Proportion of Space Facts Produced across Instructional Conditions 35 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to express my gratitude to the principal, teachers, and students of Unsworth Elementary School in Sardis, B.C. for their enthusiasm in welcoming me into their classrooms to collect the data for this project. Such partnerships between practitioners and researchers are integral to the pursuit of improving classroom learning. I would also like to thank Dr. Jacquelyn Baker-Sennett for her insightful criticisms throughout the entire process of compiling this thesis, and for her academic guidance and support throughout the course of my graduate programme. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Faculty of Education graduate student research grant that financially supported this research project. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction A. Rationale When children have difficulty learning instructional material, these difficulties are frequently attributed to memory. Children have been reported to have difficulty in the classroom with such memory tasks as recalling prior information or recognizing information as having been presented at a prior instructional episode (Lorsbach & Worman, 1989; Swanson, 1986, 1990). Memory improvement in the classroom, generally, and memory strategies, specifically, are prolific research domains in educational psychology. In particular, strategy instruction promotes the inclusion of particular encoding strategies into the instructional episode. For example, one particular strategy termed elaborative interrogation has provided evidence that having students ask "why" questions about to-be-learned material facilitates subsequent retrieval (Woloshyn, Paivio, & Pressley, 1992; Woloshyn, Pressley, & Schneider, 1994). Although it seems intuitive that students who process information to meaningful levels will perform better on memory tests, generally students do not spontaneously use these strategies, nor are such strategies taught to students during instruction (Graves & Levin, 1989; King-Sears, Mercer, & Sindelar, 1992). Another line of research that has burgeoned in the last several years is experimental research on memory and learning. Specifically, memory may be assessed explicitly or implicitly. For instance, if students are asked to think back to the last class and recall the names of desert animals that the teacher had presented, students are being tested explicitly for their memory of the instructional material. Conversely, if students are asked to name what ever animals come to mind that live in the desert, students are being tested implicitly. The number of animals that students name that were also presented at instruction represents the amount of priming or transfer from the previous instructional episode. Explicit forms of memory assessment require the purposeful recollection of recent events and experiences; 2 whereas, implicit memory tests do not require the deliberate retrieval of recently presented material (Graf, 1991; Roediger, 1990; Schacter, 1987). Importantly, populations typically considered to have memory deficits such as amnesics, young children, aging adults, and children diagnosed with learning disabilities, show no memory impairments compared to unimpaired controls when tested implicitly ( Graf & Schacter, 1985; Graf, Squire, & Mandler, 1984; Greenbaum & Graf, 1989; Light & Singh, 1987; Lorsbach & Woman, 1989; Salthouse, 1992; Schacter & Moscovitch, 1984). An additional motivating principle spurring the current study is that memory may not only be regarded as a collection of systems or "stores" in the mind, but also as a continuum of encoding and retrieval processes. A processing account of memory suggests that it is what students do with instructional material and the ways in which students are asked to retrieve information that determines memory performance, rather than where students store information and how they locate it. Specifically, it is the match between instructional and retrieval processing engaged by students that best predicts success on memory measures. This match has been termed Transfer Appropriate Processing or T.A.P. (Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977). There are several general conclusions that serve as the foundations for the current research. First, elaborative instructional strategies such as posing "why" questions about instructional material improve children's memory for the information. Second, memory may be assessed by two different forms, explicit tests which require the deliberate retrieval of information, and implicit tests, which do not require such purposeful retrieval. Third, it is the match between instructional and retrieval processing that best predicts memory success, rather than just the type of instructional strategy or memory test employed. B. Problem Statement The benefits that elaborative strategies have to memory for instructional material are impressive; however, memory has been assessed in these studies by explicit tests. To date, 3 no investigation of the effects such strategies have when memory is assessed implicitly have been conducted. Further, although this research alludes to the importance of instruction and retrieval processing overlap, it is the strategy that is emphasized as improving memory, rather than the match in elaborative instructional and retrieval processes. Experimental research manipulating elaborative processing on the two forms of memory testing has revealed mixed results. For example, some studies have found that when participants processed material elaboratively, such as by concentrating on the meaning of a word, memory tested explicitly was significantly higher than if participants concentrated on the physical characteristics of a word (Graf & Mandler, 1984; Jacoby & Dallas, 1981) However, implicit tests have been found to reveal no differences due to the elaborative or non-elaborative processing. Other studies have shown that implicit tests can be affected by elaborative processing, but that the effects are significantly less than the benefits to explicit test performance (Graf & Schacter, 1989). Such evidence highlights distinctive processing dissociations between explicit and implicit memory tests. To explain the differences found between tests due to encoding processes, several theories from a processing perspective have been postulated that elucidate the characteristics of the tests and the tasks involved to accomplish the memory task (Graf & Mandler, 1984; Mandler, 1990; Roediger & Blaxton, 1987; Roediger, Weldon, & Challis, 1989). Particularly, it is the degree to which the task requirements of the instruction match with the task requirements of testing (Blaxton, 1989; Graf & Ryan, 1990). There is currently no research on the two types of retrieval applied to classroom memory assessment, nor the ways these different types of retrieval are affected by elaborative questioning instructional strategies. Thus, the specific problem addressed by this study is to examine the effects that elaborative strategy instruction has on the two forms of memory assessment. 4 C. Purpose of the Study My research goal is to examine how an elaborative questioning strategy during instruction would affect students' memory performance as measured by an explicit and implicit test. Specifically, I am most interested in whether differences that have been reported in the literature between explicit and implicit memory tests due to retrieval instructions and elaborative processing will be replicated with children in the classroom setting. Thus, I intend to examine the effects that elaborative instruction has not only to explicit type tests, but also implicit tests, extending findings from strategy instruction research. This investigation seeks answers to the following questions: (1) Will an elaborative questioning strategy imposed during instruction increase explicit test performance in relation to performance in a non-elaborative instructional condition? (2) Will the elaborative questioning strategy increase performance on the implicit test? (3) Will explicit test performance benefit more from elaborative instruction than implicit test performance (i.e. will there be a dissociation in performance on the two tests based on instructional processing?). D. Hypotheses The present study is designed to extend findings from strategy instruction involving elaborative questioning techniques and explicit and implicit memory assessment research on the effects of elaborative processing on the two types of assessment. Two key predictions are proposed. First, it is expected that the elaborative instruction will enhance performance on the explicit test. Second, it is anticipated that implicit test performance will also be enhanced by elaborative instruction, but will be significantly less affected by the elaborative instruction than performance on the explicit test. It is intended that the study will provide educators with practical information on the benefits of an elaborative questioning technique during instruction to children's memory, as well as provide information about different memory assessment practices and the processing specific to each type of test. Further, educators may be made aware of ways to effect the 5 appropriate transfer of processing between instruction and testing, thus enhancing memory for instructional information in the classroom. 6 CHAPTER 2 Explicit and Implicit Memory Assessment: Research, Theory, and Extensions into Educational Contexts A. Introduction The extant research on explicit and implicit memory assessment ranges across populations and extends into several settings— from amnesics and the aging to college students and children; from experimental labs in universities and medical settings to urban preschools. Importantly, the motivation behind this research has been to identify the nature of memory assessed by explicit and implicit measures, its development and underlying processes or systems. To date, a sound theoretical and research basis has been established supporting applied extensions into fields such as education. Identifying the different ways in which students process and retrieve information is of practical importance to educators. Indeed, moving explicit and implicit memory research into the classroom may validate current findings from the lab, and may supplement findings from current research with new insights and discoveries. Further, educators may be provided with alternative assessment procedures based on measures that capture children's memory implicitly, rather than continually structuring classroom assessment on explicit type tests (Putnam, 1992). The purpose of this chapter is to review some key findings from the research on explicit and implicit test performance that are most portable and useful in the classroom learning environment. This review describes research that evidences differences between performance on measures of explicit and implicit memory. These differences are important because they depict the uniqueness of the two forms of memory assessment, a uniqueness that supports the use of the two tests in educational settings. Also, key theoretical accounts based on the notion of systems in the brain, or processes specific to each type of retrieval are 7 presented, theories that offer some explanation for the differences observed between explicit and implicit memory measures. Complementary findings from strategy instruction will also be integrated with emphasis on the key findings from the memory research that are applicable to strategy instruction literature. This chapter will conclude by summarizing the main findings from the research that have motivated the development of the present study. B. Explicit and Implicit Memory Assessment There is relative consistency in the literature in defining two distinct ways of measuring memory performance. Explicit or direct forms of memory assessment require the purposeful recollection of recent events and experiences; whereas, implicit or indirect memory tests do not require the deliberate retrieval of recently presented information (Graf, 1991; Roediger, 1990; Schacter, 1987). There has been a surge of research on the differences in memory performance revealed by explicit and implicit tests across retrieval instructions, development, learning disabilities, materials, and tasks. The following is a description of the assessment methods used for explicit and implicit tests of memory. Since the subsequent research that is reviewed refers by name to specific methods of explicit or implicit assessment, it is appropriate to precede the review with a description of these methods. (1) Explicit (Direct) Measures of Memory: Recognition, free recall, and cued recall are the most common types of explicit tests. Importantly, all explicit memory measures involve the student thinking back and retrieving information from a specific prior study episode, thus not only must the specific information be retrieved, but a retrieval of the context (i.e. time, place, people etc.) must also be remembered (Graf, 1991). Recognition requires the student to decide either "yes" or "no" whether they have seen the stimulus before, or to report whether the stimulus is "old" (previously studied) or "new" (not studied). Free recall is another explicit measure characterized by having the student recollect, in whatever order, information with which they have been previously 8 presented. Cued recall is a measure that provides children with a cue to assist them in recollecting previous information. For example, Buller (1990) instructed children to recall the past information they were given by cueing them with the category of the items ("Can you tell me the animals we looked at before that you might find in a zoo?"). Thus, having children think back to the animals they saw relating to zoo assisted them in recalling the actual animal presented as a study target. (2) Imylicit (Indirect) Memory Measures: Implicit or indirect measures of memory measures require the student to be guided only by the cues from the test, by the instructions, and the context, no deliberate thinking back to the prior encoding experience is required (Graf, 1991). There are four common types of implicit tests: fragment completion, word stem completion, identification, and category production. Fragment completion involves presenting the student with only part of a previously presented target item (i.e. either words or pictures) and the instructions are to name the item, or complete the fragment. Memory is revealed when more previously studied items are named than items that have never been studied. Likewise, for word-stem completion, the student is presented part of a word, (e.g., BU ) and instructed to either fill in or say aloud whatever word comes to mind. Memory is revealed if the stems are completed with words that have been previously studied. Similarly, identification tests require the student to name target items as quickly as possible with whatever comes to mind. Memory on identification tests is demonstrated when the student names more studied than not studied items. Finally, during the category production test, the student is presented with a category exemplar (e.g., earth) and he or she is instructed to name any items that belong to this category. In keeping with instructions characteristic to implicit tests, no reference is made to the prior study episode, and the student is usually stopped after a given period of time has elapsed for the naming of items, or when a specified number of items have been named. Memory is revealed if the student produces more studied items belonging to a category than not studied items. 9 C. Differences in Memory Performance Across Explicit and Implicit Tests (1) Differences Due to Retrieval Instructions: A distinguishing feature of explicit and implicit tests are the instructions with which children are provided . On the one hand, explicit tests require the deliberate "thinking back" to the initial learning experience in order to retrieve the specific information required; on the other hand, implicit tests are not as cognitively demanding and do not require a deliberate "thinking back". It is perhaps due to the added demand of having to remember back, and remember pertinent information that young children do not do as well as older children on explicit tests of memory (Greenbaum & Graf, 1989; Light & Singh, 1987; Lorsbach & Worman, 1989; Parkin & Streete, 1988). By contrast, young children do considerably better on implicit tests, suggesting that without the added burden of having to remember back to a particular context as well as come up with the right information children's memories assessed with implicit measures are as effective as their older peers (Greenbaum & Graf, 1989; Light & Singh, 1987; Lorsbach & Worman, 1989; Parkin & Streete, 1988). One way to measure the role of retrieval instructions on the two forms of memory assessment is to keep the type of test constant (i.e. stem completion as an explicit and implicit test), but to vary the retrieval instructions. For example, in one study amnesic and control subjects were given three-letter word stems as cues and were instructed with explicit test instructions to recall words from a previously presented list or with implicit test instructions to produce any word that began with those same three letters (Graf, Squire & Mandler, 1984). Amnesics performed much worse than did controls when given the explicit test instructions yet showed the same level of memory performance as controls given the implicit test instructions. Critically, the same test was held constant; what changed was the nature of the instructional demands placed on subjects. Hayman and Tulving (1989) have found similar sensitivity of retrieval instructions producing differing memory performance effects. (2) Developmental Differences: Research with young children and aging adults has revealed consistent findings in the pattern of development over the two forms of remembering. Although explicit memory appears to develop gradually then decline in late adulthood, implicit memory represents a more linear pattern of development, intact in children as young as three, and undisturbed in aging individuals (Adler, 1993; Buller, 1990; Graf, 1990; Greenbaum & Graf, 1989; Light & Singh, 1987; Parkin & Streete, 1988; Salthouse, 1992). Although the research with aging adults is intriguing, research on the development of explicit and implicit memory in children is most relevant to the present investigation. Greenbaum and Graf (1989) studied explicit and implicit memory development in 3,4, and 5 year olds. During study, each child was shown six line drawings one at a time and was instructed to name each drawing. Next, each child was immediately tested with one of two implicit category production tests embedded within a story format. The first test included categories unrelated to the previous drawing children had named, and hence provided a baseline measure of performance in the absence of previously presented pictures. The second test included categories that corresponded to the six drawings that children had previously named and provided a measure of naming of items primed by the previously presented pictures. The difference between performance on these two measures provided an index of priming or transfer from the original study episode. An explicit cued recall test followed the implicit test, and children were shown the cards, face down, and asked to recall as many of the pictures they could remember from the earlier presentation of the cards. The authors concluded that priming occurred. Results indicated that all children named consistently more targets after having previously studied the pictures than in the baseline measure. Also, the amount of priming was comparable across age groups, where 3 year olds performed as well as 5 year olds on the implicit memory measure. Conversely, cued recall performance increased significantly with age. Three year olds recalled 17%, four year olds 32% and five year olds 47%, respectively- emphasizing the gradual increment in explicit memory development between the ages of 3 and 5. Similar 11 findings have been observed by others (Buller, 1990; Light & Singh, 1987; Parkin & Streete, 1988). (3) Differences Due To Learning Disabilities: Memory impairment is a frequently cited concern for educators of children diagnosed with learning disabilities (LD) (Farnham-Diggory, 1992; Graves & Levin, 1989, Swanson, 1986, 1990; Wertlieb, 1990). While LD children perform poorly on explicit measures of memory, they demonstrate non-impaired memory performance on implicit tests (Lorsbach & Worman, 1989). Lorsbach and Worman studied memory performance on explicit and implicit tests in third and sixth grade LD and non-LD children. During initial learning, children were shown a series of line drawings (black and white two and three dimensional drawings) one at a time, and were instructed to name the drawing as quickly as possible. Immediately after this initial presentation, a free recall task was given where children were asked to recall aloud as many of the pictures as possible, in any order. Then, each child was given a cued recall task. During the cued recall task, children were told that most of the pictures that had been presented for study belonged to one of several categories. Children were then asked to recall as many pictures as possible when cued with each of the four category labels. The final task was not presented as a memory task, but as a "guessing game" where children were asked to identify the eight incomplete fragmented pictures. Importantly, instructions made no reference back to the previous study episode. Several critical results were observed. First, older children performed better than younger children and non-learning disabled performed better than learning disabled on the free recall task and the cued recall task. In line with developmental findings, older children performed higher on the explicit memory measure than younger children. Further, although LD children performed less well on the explicit test than their non-LD peers, there were no differences due to learning disabilities on the implicit memory test. Such findings replicate the findings that memory performance on explicit tests develops to an optimal level later in the child's development than performance on implicit tests (Greenbaum & Graf, 1989; Light & Singh, 1987; Parkin & Streete, 1988) and are congruent with the extant research conducted with amnesic patients who show gross deficits on explicit memory measures, but perform like unimpaired controls on implicit memory measures (Graf & Schacter, 1985; Graf, Squire & Mandler, 1984; Schacter & Moscovitch, 1984). (4) Differences Due to Materials: Typically, differences in memory performance between explicit and implicit tests involve presenting materials as the same or different at retrieval than from materials presented during encoding. For example, Weldon and Roediger (1987) presented target items to subjects as either pictures or words. Pictures were remembered better than words on the explicit test (free-recall), but prior study of words produced greater memory performance on the implicit test (word-fragment completion) than did study of pictures. Similar findings have been revealed by Graf and Miki (1990 in Graf, 1991) who used both black and white photos and written words as target information to remember. The explicit measure was a word identification and a word recognition test and the implicit measure was a word identification and a picture identification test. Although, the explicit test revealed stable memory performance effects in terms of the proportion of target items remembered with both word identification and word recognition, the implicit test revealed different performance effects for target items presented as pictures as opposed to words. Specifically, the implicit word identification test revealed higher memory performance for written words than for photos, but the photo identification test revealed higher memory performance for photos but no effect for words. Clearly, the different performance effects on explicit and implicit tests in terms of the materials presented at study, depends largely on the type of test that is employed (Graf, 1991). Further, another study researched the effects different types of fonts may have on the two forms of memory assessment for retrieving written information (Graf & Ryan, 1990). Subjects were presented with words at study displayed in an unusual type font, "Applesoft pudgy" or "shadow", then at test subjects were presented with the same or different type font. Subjects were tested explicitly and implicitly for their memory of the words with a recognition and an identification test, respectively. Memory was revealed on the implicit test only when subjects were instructed to process the visual appearance of the words, but not when they were instructed to process the words semantically (elaboratively). Importantly, memory on the explicit measure (recognition test performance) displayed the same pattern of effects. Thus, this study provides yet more evidence for the different effect materials have on explicit and implicit tests, given the way subjects are asked to retrieve previous information. Arguably, the materials that are used as target items only have differing effects on the two forms of assessment when instructions at retrieval focus the subjects' attention (and thus their processing) to the material aspect of the target (i.e. the shape of the word). (5) Differences Due to Tasks: Generally, tasks that influence memory performance on explicit measures more than implicit measures involve some degree of semantic processing. For example Graf and Mandler (1984) instructed some subjects to attend to the personal meaningfulness of target words during study, and other subjects to process words less meaningfully (e.g. by attending to the physical characteristics of the words). Semantic processing was manipulated by having subjects rate their liking of the target words, using a "like" or "dislike" scale. Non-semantic processing was manipulated by subjects focusing on the perceptual features of the words. To accomplish this perceptual task, subjects were instructed to count and record the number of intersecting lines and closed spaces in each word. Results revealed that deeper, elaborative processing from the semantic task produced higher memory performance on the explicit test only. There was no effect due to the different study tasks on implicit memory performance. Jacoby and Dallas (1981), MacLeod and Bassili (1989), and recently Schacter and Church (1992), and Besson, Fischler, Boaz, and Raney (1992) reported a similar pattern of findings for semantic versus non-semantic tasks on explicit and implicit test performance. Although meaningful processing does seem to affect performance on explicit tests more than implicit tests, Buller (1990) found that elaborative processing also increased performance on a category production implicit test. Buller showed preschoolers pictures of such things as animals, toys, clothes, and food. Some children were asked questions that focused their attention on the meaning of the object represented in the picture, while other children were simply asked questions on the perceptual features of the pictures (non-elaborative). Indeed, children who processed the information at more meaningful levels performed much better on the explicit test than those children who only focused on the perceptual parts of the pictures. However, findings also revealed that the performance on the implicit test was higher given the deeper more meaningful processing. Similarly, experiments that have focused on memory for newly acquired associations between unrelated words reveal relatively stable effects across a range of elaborative study tasks for implicit test performance, but produce quite different levels of explicit test performance (Graf & Schacter, 1989; Graf, 1991). For example, Graf and Schacter showed subjects a series of word pairs (e.g. BOOK-FOREST) and instructed them to generate a meaningful sentence connecting the word pairs (e.g., "The BOOK included a picture of a FOREST"). Then, depending on the condition in which subjects were assigned, they either continued practicing this task with the remaining word pairs or were further instructed to make a story with the sentences that they generated, for subsequent word pairs. Subjects then practiced this task with the remaining pairs. During study, subjects were equally divided into one of two conditions; sentence or story. Subjects in the sentence condition generated and read aloud a meaningful sentence for each word pair, and in the story condition, subjects generated sentences to make up a story. Subjects were tested immediately after the study phase with an implicit or an explicit test (word completion or cued recall). These researchers found that on the implicit test, a similarly large associative effect was found in both the sentence and the story task. However, on the explicit test, the associative effect was larger with the story than the sentence task. A third pattern of task effects have been revealed by experiments where subjects either read or generated the target words. For example Jacoby (1983) presented subjects with words to remember in one of three conditions: read, no context, and generate. In the read condition, subjects were asked to read out a word and its antonym (e.g. HOT - COLD) in the no context condition subjects saw a word followed by three crosses (e.g. HOT - XXX), and in the generate condition subjects were asked to complete the antonym pair (e.g. HOT - ???). Subjects were given either a recognition test or an identification test. Results indicated that memory performance on the explicit test was highest for words presented in the generate condition and lowest in the no context condition. However, memory performance on the implicit test revealed the opposite effect— memory performance was highest for words in the no context condition and lowest in the generate condition. Thus, various tasks that subjects are directed to perform during encoding, do seem to impact on the degree of memory performance on explicit and implicit tests. Although processing information more deeply and meaningfully increases memory performance on explicit tests more than implicit tests, this deeper processing does increase performance on implicit tests if compared to implicit test performance on information that was not processed meaningfully (Buller, 1990). Further, across both materials and tasks, the type of explicit or implicit test being employed influences the degree of memory performance. The more similar the test requirements to the encoding conditions, the better the memory performance on both explicit and implicit tests. Summary: A review of some of the differences observed between performance measured on explicit and implicit tests elucidate that the two forms of memory assessment indeed may be capturing different retrieval processes. Importantly, it is the differences found between varying retrieval instructions on the two tests and manipulating elaborative or non-elaborative processing during instruction that are most relevant to the present investigation. D. Theoretical Accounts Attempts to explain the various differences between explicit and implicit test performance have been theorized by neuropsychologists on the one hand, mainly advocating separate brain systems, or cognitive psychologists on the other hand, often adhering to processing approaches. Next, the explanations from both sides will be reviewed, concluding with a description of the utility of the processing approach for examining memory and learning in educational contexts. (1) Systems Accounts Theorists postulating separate systems responsible for explicit and implicit memory performance draw mainly on empirical support from neuropsychological findings from amnesic patients. The extant finding that amnesics can perform comparably to controls on implicit memory measures, yet are severely impaired in their performance on explicit memory measures provides strong support for separate systems in the brain. Specifically emphasized by systems theorists is that the brain damage resulting in amnesia has selectively impaired the system responsible for explicit remembering, while leaving the system responsible for implicit remembering intact and undisturbed (Graf & Schacter, 1985; Roediger, 1990). Declarative and Procedural Systems: To explain the dissociations between the perceptual nature of implicit memory and the semantic nature of explicit memory, Squire (1986) has postulated two memory systems, procedural and declarative, responsible for implicit and explicit remembering, respectively. Similar systems have also been postulated by Tulving (1983). Squire describes the procedural system as responsible for the enactment of skills, the knowing "how" of behavior. Conversely, the declarative system reflects communicable knowledge, the knowing "that". According to Squire, different neural structures underlie performance on measures tapping the two forms of remembering and dissociations between explicit and implicit measures of memory are reflected by these different systems. Apparently, the procedural system underlies motor skills, priming, and classical conditioning and is responsible for performance on implicit memory tests, whereas the declarative memory system includes neural structures in the limbic system of the brain and is responsible for performance on explicit memory tests (Squire, 1986). Accordingly, in amnesics the system responsible for declarative memory is impaired, leading to poor performance on explicit test. In healthy individuals, variables may affect explicit remembering and have no effect or opposite effects on implicit remembering. Dissociations are to be expected, according to Squire, since the two systems are independent. Priming can be accounted for by postulating that performance on completion and identification tests depend on the activation of the procedural system whereas explicit recall and recognition depend on the declarative system. The strength of this view is that it provides a straight forward account of unimpaired perceptual motor skills learning in amnesics who lack intentional, deliberate recollection of prior episodes (Roediger, 1990). It is likely, according to systems theorists, that the procedural system, thought responsible for implicit remembering, is less prone to injury and trauma, develops sooner in life (as early as age 3) and remains relatively stable and intact across the life span (Schacter & Moscovitch, 1984). Perceptual Representation System: Schacter (1992) has proposed an alternative view based on findings from positron emission tomography (P.E.T.) scans of brain-damaged patients. He has found that studies of lexical processing using P.E.T. indicate that visual word form information and semantic information are handled by separate brain regions. Schacter has proposed the existence of a perceptual representation system (P.R.S.) that reflects the representation and retrieval of visual forms of words and objects independent from semantic processing. Such a system supports findings that amnesics are unimpaired on tasks requiring perceptual, data-driven processing as measured by implicit measures, but have a deficient semantic processing system dependent on conceptually-driven processes tapped by explicit measures. Further, the various dissociative effects may be explained by integrating processing and systems theories. By this view, explicit and implicit memory measures require specific types of processing, uniquely different from one another. This uniqueness may be explained, in part, by their location in different areas of the brain. (2) Processing Accounts: The Importance of Encoding and Retrieval Processing Overlap Processing theorists postulate that dissociations between explicit and implicit test performance reflect the type of processing engaged by subjects across study and testing conditions (Kolers, 1975). Transfer Appropriate Processing (T.A.P.) has been applied as a useful framework to explain dissociative effects arising when conditions between study and testing are varied (Graf & Ryan, 1990; Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977; Roediger & Blaxton, 1987; Roediger, Weldon, & Challis, 1989). According to the T.A.P. framework, memory performance will be greater when processes engaged at study and testing overlap than when these processes are varied. Importantly it is what students do with to-be-remembered information, and the overlap in what students did during initial learning, and what they do at retrieval that best determines successful memory performance. This framework is integrated in the subsequent accounts reviewed, and is an extremely useful tool for explaining memory and learning in the classroom context. Conceptually-Driven and Data-Driven Processes: Roediger and Blaxton (1987) have suggested that explicit and implicit memory represent two separate types of processing- conceptually-driven and data-driven, respectively. Conceptually-driven processes are directed by the meaning of and organization the subject deliberately imposes on the target stimuli, whereas data-driven processes represent processing guided only by the data, or perceptual features of the stimuli. Certainly, the key findings regarding dissociations between explicit and implicit memory measures appeal to such an explanation. Typically, tests that measure explicit memory require some sort of constructive, elaborative processing, such as free recall or word recognition. On the other hand, tests that measure implicit memory, such as word identification, are argued to be dependent on the perceptual or data-driven characteristics of the materials. Performance dissociations between explicit and implicit tests are thus attributed to differences between conceptually driven and data-driven processes. Dual Processes of Integration and Elaboration: Although a data-driven, conceptually-driven explanation does distinguish between types of processing typically required by explicit and implicit test, it does not readily account for priming, nor the absence of deliberate retrieval in implicit memory. Alternatively, dual processes of integration and elaboration provide a useful distinction between implicit and explicit tests based on the activation of underlying memory representations (Graf & Mandler, 1984; Mandler, 1990). On the one hand, integration is the result of processing that creates an organized whole between the parts of a target representation. Elaboration, on the other hand, is the result of processing that makes associations between a target and other mental contents, so that the target is encoded with other aspects of the learning situation, such as prior knowledge and setting cues (Graf, 1991; Graf & Mandler, 1984; Mandler, 1990). Thus, elaborative processing fits the subsequent representation of the target with a network of other related representations. Subsequently, each study task requires some amount of integrative and elaborative processing, and that explicit and implicit memory tests differ in the degree to which they emphasize either elaborative or integrative processing (Graf, 1991). Since implicit memory tests typically require subjects to produce items in response to a word fragment completion, or to identify previously studied words, for example, performance usually requires perceiving a structure that integrates the cueing information. Thus, once a representation has become integrated through the study trial episode, a representation has the tendency to become re-integrated even when only some of its components are later processed, such as during implicit testing. Graf & Mandler (1984) have postulated that integration is an automatic, non-deliberate process and thus does not benefit from controlled, elaborative processing. This finding is congruent with the research that observed increases to explicit but not implicit memory performance on tasks requiring elaborative, semantic processing (MacLeod & Bassili, 1989). Further, when study and testing processes overlap, priming effects reflect the extent to which test processing overlaps with study processing and thus triggers the re-integration of encoded units. When study and testing processes are varied, implicit memory performance drops because no representational trace can be found for the test target and the encoded target. No re-integration occurs, and implicit test performance suffers. Further, the automaticity of integration and re-integration characterizes the findings from implicit tests regarding retrieval intentionality. Instruction for implicit memory measures typically require a response to items "what ever way comes to mind" without requiring thinking back to the prior episode. In line with the T. A. P. framework, if subjects during study are automatically integrating target information, they will benefit at test it they are required to engage the same automatic process (Graf, 1991). Conversely, since explicit tests are typically processed elaboratively, Graf and Mandler (1984) argue that successful performance is exhibited only when a person is able to deliberately retrieve the target word through one of the associative paths to the word. Such retrieval is made more accessible when one has perceived relations among a set of information, achieved through elaborative, or semantic processing. Summary: Clearly, both systems and processing accounts offer feasible explanations for the differences in performance observed across explicit and implicit tests. The most portable explanation to improving classroom learning is the framework of T.A.P. and the dual processes of integration and elaboration. E. Strategy Instruction and Memory Research: Complementary Findings There is a great degree of overlap between findings from research on strategy instruction and findings reviewed thus far in the memory literature, particularly the importance of elaborative processing during instruction and matching processes engaged at instruction 21 with processes engaged at testing (T.A.P.). Although it seems intuitive to have children process classroom instructional information meaningfully, many researchers in this field have found that, in fact, much instruction contains weak if any elaborative processing requirements (Pressley, Wood, Woloshyn, Martin, King, & Menke, 1992; Woloshyn, Paivio, & Pressley, 1994). Further, the strategy instruction research has only employed explicit type tests to measure children's retrieval of material using certain strategies. Thus, the congruency in research rests with the benefits that certain elaborative processing strategies have on students' recall or recognition of instructional material, no studies to date have examined the effect of such strategies on implicit test performance. The following section reviews findings from studies applying a strategy termed elaborative interrogation and explores the similarities to process findings previously reviewed from memory research. Strategies Involving Elaborative Interrogation: Although there are numerous strategies reported in the literature, recently researchers have been examining the role of elaboration during instruction, especially in the form of questioning activities, to see how elaborative questioning may affect retrieval of instructional material. For example Woloshyn, Pressley, and Schneider (1992) found that elaborative interrogation effected a high level of recall performance for factual material. College students were provided facts about Canadian provinces, and German states in one of two conditions, "reading to understand" , where students were instructed to read the facts very carefully, making certain that they understood each one, and elaborative interrogation, where students answered "why" questions about the facts. Testing directly followed the presentation of the facts. Testing was a matching task, where students were instructed to match the provinces and states they had previously studied to their corresponding fact. Results indicated that students who asked "why" questions to the factual information performed better on the matching test than their "reading to understand" counterparts. In another study, Wood, Pressley, and Winne (1990) demonstrated that elaborative interrogation can benefit younger students (i.e. grades 4 through 8). Study participants were presented paragraphs containing information about animals. Students in the elaborative interrogation condition responded to each factual statement in the passages as a "why" question (e.g. "Why does it make sense that the skunk lives alone?"). Reading control participants read the text for the entire time that corresponded to reading and question answering in the elaborative interrogation condition. The criterion task was to provide the name of the animal associated with each fact when the fact was provided on a test (e.g. "Which animal lives in a whole in the ground?" Answer: Western Spotted Skunk or skunk). Elaborative interrogation subjects answered 59% of these questions correctly, compared to 49% in the reading control condition. Further, a recent study by Woloshyn, Paivio, and Pressley (1994) researched whether elaborative interrogation would help sixth and seventh graders learn information consistent and inconsistent with their prior knowledge. In the first experiment, students were presented facts from several domains, the solar system, plants, animals, and the circulatory system, written on cards and presented to students assigned to one of two conditions, reading control, or elaborative interrogation. Reading control subjects were asked to read each statement aloud in a continuous manner for the entire time that the statement was presented. Students in the elaborative interrogation condition were instructed to read each statement silently but to answer aloud the associated "why" question. It was stressed that the facts should be read for meaning. Acquisition of the facts was measured by free recall and cued recall tests and an immediate and 14-day recognition test. Findings revealed that learning was facilitated regardless of whether students studied the facts that were consistent or inconsistent with their prior knowledge. It is postulated by strategy instruction researchers that much of the benefit of having students ask "why" questions about the material to be learned is due to the activation of relevant prior knowledge. However, it should be noted that the type of tests used for the above experiments were recall and recognition tests, explicit tests of memory. Certainly, in terms of the framework of T.A.P. performance is benefited at retrieval through this elaborative processing because the processes required during testing engage the same processes. Asking "why" questions during the presentation of the facts activated children's prior knowledge of those facts, whether that knowledge was consistent or inconsistent with the fact, activating associative paths about the facts. During testing, students were asked to recall the facts that they had previously studied, and given the process of elaboration, the deliberate act of thinking back activated the associative paths to the facts that had been acquired during instruction. Certainly, the perceived relations among the facts achieved through elaborative processing made the facts more accessible than the reading-control students. An interesting extension to this research would be adding another measure, and implicit test, to see how elaborative interrogation would affect implicit retrieval. Given the findings reviewed from the memory literature, it is likely that the elaborative strategy would increase implicit test performance in relation to the reading for meaning condition, however the gains to test performance may not be as pronounced as those reported for the explicit type tests employed. Summary: This section has described how two key findings from the memory research, elaborative processing, and T.A.P., can inform our understanding of questioning strategies applied to classroom instruction. In addition, researching the effects such instructional processing has on implicit as well as explicit tests will enhance the strategy instruction research, integrating findings from complementary research areas. Certainly, a complete investigation of the efficacy of strategies such as elaborative interrogation would need to include retrieval processes that go beyond explicit remembering, since explicit retrieval is just one way of accessing instructional information. To attain a more complete understanding of the different ways in which encoding processes at instruction impact on retrieval, different retrieval processes should also be investigated. F. Summary of the Background Research and Purpose of the Present Study There are three main areas in the research literature that are most relevant to the development of the present study. Firstly, I have attempted to show that memory may be accessed by two different types of tests, explicit and implicit. Most assessments performed in the classroom involve explicit tests, but the demonstrated differences reviewed, and theoretical explanations postulated provide strong support for two unique ways of assessing memory. Secondly, I have attempted to identify some of the processes that are involved in the retrieval of information on explicit and implicit tests, processes that may in part explain some of the differences observed between explicit and implicit test performance. Thirdly, I have examined the framework of T. A.P. as providing a useful account for the dissociations between explicit and implicit tests. Most importantly, I have attempted to integrate findings on elaborative processing in strategy instruction research with findings established in memory processing research, integrating the framework of T.A.P. into findings from the strategy instruction research, and establishing this framework as a particularly influential account for the success of elaborative strategy instruction on subsequent retrieval of instructional material. Consequently, the present study was designed to synthesize and extend findings from research on memory and strategy instruction. There has been scant research in educational settings on the replication of dissociative memory effects in the classroom as opposed to the lab environment. Further there have been no studies from the strategy instruction research that have included implicit tests to measure the degree of facilitation brought about by elaborative strategies. The following study, conducted in the classroom with grade 3 and 4 students, addresses these issues. CHAPTER 3 Methodology A. Introduction Although there is a broad history of explicit and implicit memory research, to date no research has been conducted in the context of the classroom. Likewise, although extensive research in strategy instruction has been conducted in the classroom, no studies have investigated performance on implicit tests in relation to strategy instruction. Specifically, this investigation seeks answers to the following questions: (1) Will an elaborative strategy imposed during instruction increase explicit test performance in relation to performance in a non-elaborative instructional condition? (2) Will the elaborative strategy increase performance on an implicit test? (3) Will explicit test performance benefit more from elaborative instruction than implicit test performance (i.e. will there be a dissociation in performance on the two tests based on instructional processing ?). The following chapter provides a detailed description of the selection of participants, materials and design, procedures and data preparation of my investigation. All materials and verbatim instructions for each instructional condition and testing are presented in Appendices A through E, respectively. B. Participants A total of 44 students from grades three and four (26 girls and 18 boys) participated in the study. Eight of these students were identified by their teachers as requiring learning assistance (3 boys and 5 girls) and were subsequently omitted from data analysis. The students comprised one grade three and two grade four classes at a semi-rural elementary school in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Three teachers were solicited for their voluntary participation in the study, and children participated voluntarily with informed parental consent. Students were randomly paired with a classmate and half were assigned randomly to an interrogative elaboration instructional condition, and half were assigned to a read aloud instructional condition. Students were paired with a classmate during both instructional conditions in order to expedite data collection (i.e. one full day was required for instruction and a second full day for testing). Also, students in all three classes were usually paired with a classmate at their desk. Participants were therefore accustomed to receiving instruction with another peer. The children participated in the study as a separate activity apart from the current classroom activity. C. Materials and Design (1) Materials: A total of 24 facts about outer space (space facts) were required for the study (see Appendix A). These space facts comprised six space categories which were: (a) moon (b) sun (c) earth (d) meteors (e) stars, and (0 planets. These space facts were gathered and adapted from a lesson developed for the provincial grade three curriculum by Penner (1987), and from a chapter on outer space from a grade 8 science text (Bullard, Bauman, Gore, McCammon, & Sieben, 1985). To increase the likelihood that items would be appropriate for both grades, item selection forms were developed that included a list of 100 space facts and these forms were distributed to the three teachers whose students would be participating in the study. Teachers were instructed to select the grade appropriateness of each space fact item as suitable for grade 3 only, grade 4 only, or both grades 3 and 4. Those items mutually selected by teachers as appropriate for both grades were selected as stimulus items. Further, the interrogative elaboration condition required a total of 72 simple yes/no questions, three questions for each of the 24 space facts, and three practice questions unrelated to space were developed (see Appendix B). The implicit test required six short stories (about 50 words) that were relevant to each of the six space categories (see Appendix E). Also, crayons and poster paper were needed for the interrogative elaboration condition. (2) Design: The 24 space facts from the six categories were randomly combined to comprise four cards used for instruction (see Appendix C). Each card contained one item from each of the six space categories. Two instructional conditions (interrogative elaboration and read aloud) and two testing conditions (explicit and implicit) were also incorporated into the design. Instructional condition served as the between-subjects factor, and type of test was the within-subjects factor. Having test as a within-subjects factor provided a direct comparison between performance for each student on the two measures. Students were instructed in pairs and tested individually. Each pair of students received 12 space facts from two cards at instruction. The four cards were counterbalanced across students and instructional condition to produce a 6 X 2 table of possible random assignment of pairs of students. During the interrogative elaboration condition students received three questions to which they were instructed to answer "yes" or "no" whether the information in the question was true for the fact they had just been presented. This technique was adapted from the techniques of Woloshyn, Pressley, and Schneider (1992) and was assumed to provide a moderate degree of elaborative processing. Students created their own poster including the space facts after all the space facts and questions had been presented. The purpose of the poster making component was to allow students to relate the facts to prior knowledge, inducing further elaborative processing on the instructional material. During the read aloud condition, students were asked to read each of the space facts aloud with the experimenter. No other elaborative processing was imposed. D. Procedure (1) Instruction: The study consisted of three parts: introduction, instruction, and testing. Introduction and instruction required about 15 minutes for the interrogative elaboration condition and 10 minutes for the read aloud condition. During introduction and instruction, pairs of students were asked to join the experimenter at a table in a separate corner of the classroom. The experimenter informed the pair that they would be shown two cards containing 12 facts scientists have discovered about space. In the interrogative elaboration condition, students were informed that they would be asked three questions after each fact to be answered "yes" or "no" and were informed that they would be making their own poster about the facts in a few minutes (see Appendix D). Students then proceeded to practice the questioning task with the practice facts. After the practice questions had been successfully answered, the experimenter proceeded with the critical space fact presentation, reading out the space facts slowly, and asking three questions after each space fact. When all 12 of the space facts had been presented, the experimenter laid the cards on the table so that the students could refer to them, and asked the students to create their own poster using as many of the space facts as possible. The students were instructed to ask the experimenter if they were unsure of a word on the card. Students in the read aloud condition were introduced to the space facts in the same manner as the students in the interrogative elaboration condition, but were informed that they would be required to read aloud, slowly and carefully with the experimenter each of the 12 space facts (see Appendix D). After this introduction, the experimenter held up the first card and pointed to the space fact sentence, children proceeded to read along with the experimenter each of the space facts on both cards. Children in both instructional conditions were not informed that they would be tested the following day. It was intended that the incidental nature of the testing would not encourage students to think about, and therefore process the facts again in the absence of the experimental manipulation (Bower & Schacter, 1990). (2) Testing: Testing followed the next day with individual students and consisted of an explicit test followed directly by an implicit test. Explicit Test: The explicit free recall test was given to all students first. Each student was provided the following instructions at test, "Yesterday, we talked about space and some space facts that scientists have discovered. Can you think back to yesterday when we talked about space, and tell me all the space facts that you remember?". Students' responses were recorded on individually coded testing sheets. Students were prompted when it appeared they were having difficulty with the following prompt, "Are there any more facts that we talked about that you can remember?". When students let the experimenter know that they could not recall any more facts, the experimenter proceeded with the implicit test. Implicit Test: A category fact production test served as the implicit measure. Students were instructed that they would be read six short stories and would be asked to answer a question at the end of the story. The stories were relevant to each space fact category, and the questions at the end of each story asked students to name up to five items from each space category (see Appendix E). For example: "A little girl, Carrie and her friend Mark were walking home from school on a very hot Summer day. They were trying to decide if they should go to Carrie's house for lemonade, or head straight to the outdoor swimming pool, because they were so hot. Instead of deciding where to go, Carrie and Mark began discussing the sun, since it was so hot out. What are five things Carrie and Mark might have said about the sun?" Each student's responses were recorded under the appropriate category on the test sheets. If students had difficulty naming items, the question at the end of the story was repeated once, and students were prompted with, "Can you think of three more things about the sun? Two more?", and so on. When students named five items, or said that they could not think of any more items, the experimenter proceeded to the next story. When implicit testing was completed, students were thanked for their participation, and returned to ongoing classroom activity. E. Data Preparation and Scoring (1) Dependent Variables: Test scores were computed for every student from the proportion of target space facts recalled on the explicit test, and the proportion of target space facts named on the category production implicit test. (2) Baseline Measure: Since space fact items were counterbalanced across students, a baseline measure of performance was able to be computed for the implicit test. This measure provided an estimate of the proportion of space facts named on the category production test in the absence of exposure during instruction. Thus, for every student, a score was recorded representing the proportion of space facts named without having received the fact at instruction. (3) Calculation of Priming: The calculation of the baseline also allowed priming to be computed across students. Priming scores were calculated by subtracting the baseline score from the proportion of studied space fact items named on the category production test. (4) Scores Across Items and Categories: Across students, the items studied and recalled and studied and not recalled were coded for the explicit test. Likewise, items studied and produced, not studied but produced, and not studied not produced were coded for the implicit test. This procedure provided a calculation of hits (items studied and recalled or items studied and produced) and misses (items not studied or recalled or items not studied or produced) across tests. Scores were calculated for every student on the proportion of target space facts recalled or produced across the six space categories. F. Summary and Directional Predictions The present study was designed to extend findings from strategy instruction involving elaborative questioning techniques and explicit and implicit memory research on the effects of elaborative processing on explicit and implicit test performance. Given the findings reviewed in the second chapter, two key prediction are proposed. Although I expect a main effect for instructional condition where performance on both tests will be enhanced in the elaborative instructional condition, I expect this effect to be most pronounced for the explicit measure revealing a significant interaction between test and instructional condition. 31 CHAPTER 4 Results A. Introduction There were two dependent measures of interest, the proportion of target space facts recalled on the explicit test and the proportion produced on the implicit test. The critical alpha level was set at .05. All relevant ANOVA tables are presented in Appendix F. First, findings from.the preliminary analysis will be presented, followed by a priori findings to answer the main question of how the elaborative instructional condition affected the two types of memory retrieval compared to a non-elaborative strategy. B. Preliminary Analyses Preliminary analyses revealed no differences on the two tests for sex or grade, however, a significant main effect for class was revealed in a 2 X 2 X 3 repeated measures ANOVA where instructional condition (read aloud or interrogative elaboration) and class (1, 2,3) served as the between-subjects factors and test (recall and production) was the within-subjects factor. There was no significant three-way interaction F (2,30) = 1.62 p >.05. (1) Class Effects: A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for class F (2,30) = 4.68 p < .017 but only on the implicit test; explicit test performance was similar across classes. Class three performed better overall (45%) than class one (29%) or class two (23%). There was, however, no significant two-way interaction between instructional condition and class, suggesting that the instructional condition had similar effects on performance across both tests, with all classes performing similarly across instructional conditions. This lack of an interaction implies that the difference between classes may be due to characteristics of the class such as an overall knowledge of space, rather than experimental effects due to the instructional condition or differences in memory measured by the two tests. An ANOVA of the priming data by class revealed that class three displayed more priming (42%) than both class one (21%) and class two (24%), F (1,34) = 8.68 p < .001. A further analysis of the items produced within each category by class, revealed a main effect for the categories "moon" and "stars" where class three produced significantly more target space facts within these categories than the other classes, Jp(l,34) = 4.18 p < .025, suggesting perhaps a greater familiarity with moon and star facts than the other classes (see Appendix G). It is interesting, though, that there were no differences in baseline performance across classes F(2,30) = .565 p > .05; the baseline measure was proportionately low compared to priming. A greater familiarity with certain categories of facts, or certain words and their meanings may have overemphasized the priming effect. Likewise, less familiarity may have underestimated the baseline measure, making it much lower than if items had been more familiar to students. Since implicit test performance is measured by the relationship between baseline performance and priming, differences between the classes due to familiarity with the subject of space would have been more pronounced on the implicit measure, as was found. Conversely, having students recall the facts that they had previously studied required students to be guided by a deliberate recollection of the facts and students would have been guided more by reconstructing the instructional situation, rather than relying on their familiarity with the items. Further, frequency analyses of the naming of items across categories on the two tests revealed that naming was not distributed equally across the categories. Some items within categories were undoubtedly more difficult for all students, and less familiar than some other category items (see Appendix H). C. Effects of Instructional Processing A priori analyses were performed to answer the main questions regarding whether a dissociation in performance would be observed on the two tests due to instructional processing and the effects of elaborative instruction on explicit and implicit test performance. Performance data from the two tests was analyzed in a 2 X 2 repeated measures ANOVA where instructional condition (read aloud, interrogative elaboration) was the between-subjects factor and test (explicit, implicit) was the within-subjects factor. (1) Interaction Effects: There was no significant interaction found between instructional condition and test F(l,34) = 2.21 p > .05, where explicit and implicit test performance benefited similarly from the interrogative elaboration instruction. Thus, no support was found for a dissociation between tests due to the instructional processing. An analysis of the content of the information retrieved on both tests was conducted to see if this similarity in performance was true across item content. An overall correlation of space fact items for hits (items presented at instruction and recalled or produced) and misses (items presented at instruction and not recalled or produced) were significantly correlated. For studied items, children tended to produce the same items that they recalled r = .49p < .05. Similarly, if children did not recall a studied item, they also tended not to produce the item either r = .44/? < .05. Thus, the relationship across explicit and implicit test content adds further evidence of the performance similarities and the absence of any dissociation between the two tests. (2) Main Effects: Explicit and Implicit Measures: A main effect was found for instructional condition F(l,34) = 9.69 p < .004. Children in the interrogative elaboration condition recalled (39.7%) and produced (40%) a significantly greater proportion of space facts than students recalled (21%) and produced (25%) in the read aloud condition . Figure 1 summarizes the main findings across instructional conditions for explicit test performance. FIGURE 1 Proportion of Space Facts Recalled Across Instructional Conditions 40 J ,.;.;.;.:,..;.;.;.;.;..:;...;.;.:.:.:.:.;.;,;,M 35 -- WMM^^M 30 -- rErfH^HEUU^HEnnnn^HH^HM^ H^H:^  Mean 25 -- ^:^:^:^x^::::::::x::::::::::::S Percentage of —„,^r—-~~———~— ::::::::::::::::::::::::::':::::::::::::::::::: Target Facts j:j:;!v:v:v:;:v:::::v:j:::::::o:j:j: XvivivXvivSvivivxoiv Recalled 15 - - ^ ^ ^ : ^ £ M + ^ 5 - - : j : j ! i ! ; l ^ :S$^ o - I—l;:^^:^:^:^^:^:^^^—i—1 : - ' ' : ; : ; : : : : : : : ; : ; : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :^ 1 Read Aloud Interrogative Elaboration Figure 2 summarizes the main findings for implicit test performance. The baseline measure provides an overall estimate of the proportion of space facts named in the absence of students having received the target facts at instruction. The second and third measure represent the proportion of space facts that were presented and named in the read aloud and interrogative elaboration conditions, respectively. The difference between the baseline and these two measures represents the degree of priming (the difference between the proportion of space facts not presented at instruction, but named, and the proportion of space facts that were presented at instruction and named). Figure 2 reveals that priming occurred in both instructional conditions. An ANOVA of the priming data revealed a significant main effect for the instructional condition, F(l,34) = 4.96p < .033 with more priming in the interrogative elaboration condition (35%) than in the read aloud condition (23%). This finding is noteworthy for it provides evidence of elaborative processing effects on the implicit measure, effects that did not differ significantly to those effects on the explicit measure. 40 35 30 --25 --Mean Percentage of Target Facts 20 - -Produced 10 --5 --0 FIGURE 2 Proportion of Space Facts Produced Across Instructional Conditions Baseline Read Aloud Interrogative Elaboration D. Summary Results provided support for the predicted increases to explicit and implicit test performance due to elaborative instruction, but no effects were found to support the predicted greater albeit dissociated effect to explicit than implicit test performance. Rather, explicit and implicit test performance benefited similarly from the elaborative instruction. Although the tasks required for explicit and implicit tests are typically reported as being guided by different processes (elaborative, conceptually-driven for explicit and integrative, data-driven for implicit), the tasks employed in the present study both required conceptually-driven elaborative processes. Given the importance of the match between study and test processing, it is not surprising that more elaborative instruction facilitated better memory retrieval on both tests. Results will be discussed in the next chapter in terms of the similarity of processes guiding both memory measures. CHAPTER 5 Summary and Conclusions A. Introduction This chapter will discuss the findings presented in Chapter 4, examine some methodological issues from the investigation, and provide suggestions for future inquiry. Educational implications of the study will also be presented, emphasizing the importance of classroom instruction that provides an appropriate match to retrieval situations. B. Discussion The critical findings from the present study are that interrogative elaboration as an instructional task increased recall performance on the explicit test and category production performance on the implicit test. These findings support strategy instruction research and the benefits to explicit-type tests with elaborative questioning techniques, but offers somewhat contradictory evidence in terms of the elaborative effects to implicit test performance. These results will be examined in terms of the types of tests that were employed in the study, from the dual processes of integration and elaboration (see Chapter 2 for a review), and from the framework of T.A.P. Implicit test performance in the interrogative elaboration condition was expected to be increased; however, this increase was predicted to be significantly less than explicit test performance. It was hypothesized that given the more integrative nature of the processing required for implicit test performance, the elaborative processes engaged at instruction would not match with the less elaborative, more integrative processing required on the implicit test. Since the category production test included a story, it was predicted that this story would activate some elaborative processing. However, since no explicit instructions were provided referring students back to the previous instructional episode, performance was expected to rely more on integrative processes, thereby lessening the benefit of elaborative processing. However, the implicit test selected— category production- may have required the engagement of elaborative processes to the same degree as the explicit, free recall test. Given that both tests probably require the same degree of elaborative processes, it is not surprising that performance on both tests displayed the same degree of benefit from the elaborative instruction. Clearly, a closer examination of the task requirements of the category production test elucidates the need for elaborative processing. The short story likely activated associative and elaborative links back to the previous instructional episode. While listening to the story, and then responding to the question requiring naming of category items, students were likely indirectly relating the information on the test to the information they were presented at instruction. Providing that instruction was elaborative, students benefited from activating these associative paths at testing. Conversely, if the implicit test had been a word identification test, requiring integrative processing, students likely would have benefited less from elaborative instruction; the relationship between test items and instruction may have been less apparent; and a dissociation between performance on the two tests may have been found. The findings from the present study replicate experimental findings that selecting a more conceptually driven elaborative implicit test eliminates performance dissociations between implicit and explicit measures (Blaxton, 1989; Roediger Weldon, & Challis, 1989). The notion that some implicit tests, such as category production, are more similar in terms of processing to explicit tests was addressed by Hamann (1990). He stated that finding increases to implicit test performance due to elaborative processing would be uninteresting if we assume that they are only being guided by the same processes as explicit tests. In essence there would be no need to differentiate between explicit or implicit tests of memory, for the similarity in processing would supersede any effect of retrieval instructions. However, Hamann referred to work with amnesics (Graf, Shimamuru, & Squire, 1985, in Hamann, 1990) where amnesics performed poorly on a recall test after elaborative instruction, but performed as well as controls on an elaborative category production type test. At least with amnesics, the way information is accessed, whether explicitly or implicitly, is the most important factor rather than just the overlap in encoding and test processes. A processing account is especially useful in predicting performance success for classroom instruction and assessment, but taken outside of this context, say to memory impaired populations, this account does not entirely address explicit and implicit dissociations in amnesics. Certainly, this line of research warrants further investigation to elucidate the degree retrieval instructions and matching encoding and retrieval processes interact or supersede one another on measures of explicit and implicit memory. The main findings from the present study suggest that memory, at least in the classroom, is not always dissociated by retrieval instructions. Rather, retrieval is guided by the overlap of instructional and testing processes. Such a view does not support the claims for two dissociated systems of remembering. Rather, remembering is a reflection of the similarity between what students do with information at instruction and testing. Dissociations observed in the literature with elaborative processing are observed often between tests that require different processes, such as free recall and word identification. These differences do not necessarily depict two different forms or systems of memory, rather they depict different ways in which processes are engaged to access previously acquired information (Blaxton, 1989; Roediger, Srinivas, Weldon, 1989; Roediger, Weldon, Stadler, Riegler, 1992). Importantly, explicit and implicit test instructions can facilitate the same pattern of memory performance when instructional processing is elaborative on both tests. C. Methodological Issues and Directions for Future Research (1) Methodological Issues My goal in conducting the research for this thesis was to investigate whether dissociations found between explicit and implicit tests, resulting from elaborative instructional strategies, would generalize to the classroom setting. Due to the similarity in elaborative processing required by both tests at retrieval, however, no differences were found between the explicit or implicit tests. It was concluded that the overlap in instruction and testing processes was a greater determinant of memory performance in this study than the explicit or implicit instructions of the tests. Three areas of improvement are suggested in the methodology of the present study. First, it is possible that the effects of processing on the explicit test carried over to the implicit test, resulting in students' engaging the same deliberate retrieval processes, even though the instructions on the implicit test did not require students to refer back to the original instructional episode. Although the effects of carryover were considered, the experiment was designed based on research literature that reports "stochastic independence" between explicit and implicit tests of memory where memory for an item on one test does not predict memory for that same item on the other test (Graf & Schacter, 1985; Parkin, 1989; Snodgrass & Hirshman, 1994). However, the fact that students tended to recall and produce the same content of items provides evidence contrary to independence and the effect of carryover between tests is likely. This carryover may have created a more biased description of the elaborative effects found for the implicit test. In retrospect, counterbalancing the order of testing across subjects would have controlled this effect. Second, the interrogative elaboration instruction condition required about five more minutes instructional time than the read aloud condition. In order to ensure that time was not a variable increasing performance in the elaborative condition, or decreasing performance in the read aloud condition, time across instructional conditions should have been held constant. However, Craik and Lockhart's (1972) seminal levels of processing study showed that even when time was held constant, performance at retrieval benefited from the elaborative processing manipulation during study. Third, the differences in recall and production rates across categories, and the differences observed between classes in the production of category items, revealed discrepancies in item familiarity. Apparently, having students' teachers rate the items in terms of their grade appropriateness was, by itself, not a reliable procedure for item selection. Rather, collecting production norms for the same categories across third and fourth graders from several schools would have controlled for the appropriateness of items. Also, pilot testing the categories on another group of third and fourth graders would have provided early evidence of any discrepancies in content familiarity. (2) Directions for Future Research Several intriguing areas for future research are suggested that include investigations comparing a variety of instructional strategies and several types of tests with explicit and implicit retrieval instructions. Further extensions also are suggested across populations such as comparisons of different grades or across students with learning disabilities. First, in order to understand more clearly the type of processing required for certain instructional tasks, a manipulation including several types of instructional activities would be interesting. Pressley, Wood, Woloshyn, Martin, King and Menke (1992) have investigated several extensions to elaborative questioning strategies. For example, reciprocal questioning, where students pair with a classmate and alternate posing elaborative questions about instructional material has been studied, along with students generating their own questions, and the effects of responding to pre-questions accompanying texts. Another line of research has investigated the effects of mnemonic instruction on students information retrieval (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1990, 1991; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1992). Typically, these strategies involve making acoustic and visual associations between instructional information. For example, Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, and Brigham (1992) employed the keyword technique to teach students U. S. capitals. In order to learn that Madison is the capital of Wisconsin, students were first provided with an acoustic mnemonic for Wisconsin (whisk broom) and for Madison (maid). Next, students were presented a picture of a maid sweeping with a whisk broom and the state and the capital appeared along with the acoustic mnemonics, labeled at the top of the picture. This strategy was found to substantially increase performance on a cued recall test, in comparison to students who received no keyword strategies. An interesting extension, then, would be to see what effects other elaborative strategies and the keyword method have on implicit tests such as word identification, or word fragment completion, compared to effects on explicit tests. Similarly, varying the types of tests employed would add further evidence to explicit and implicit memory systems versus processing distinctions. Other studies may employ several types of implicit and explicit tests to further examine the issue of processing overlap. Another interesting question is whether this degree of instruction and retrieval overlap is more important at certain stages of development, or with certain populations. Comparing the effects of processing overlap across grades, such as comparing elementary and secondary students would be an interesting extension. Further, investigating the effects of instruction and test processing overlap with learning disabled students compared to non-learning disabled students may provide new insights into the types of processing deficits experienced by learning disabled students (Swanson, 1986, 1990; Wertlieb, 1990). Finally, an analysis of the specific types and components of processing required by typical instructional practices and the degree to which testing captures these same processes would be interesting. Such an analysis may involve an examination of standard curriculum, texts, and observations of teachers instructional and testing techniques. Such an investigation would illuminate the degree to which current educational practices take the interdependent role of instructional and testing processes into account. D. Educational Implications Research for this thesis was mediated by a quest to study ways of improving students' learning. Clearly, the importance of matching what students do during instruction with what they do during testing is a strong predictor of performance success. This concept has been alluded to in the strategy instruction research, but strategy researchers emphasize the strategies, rather than an overlap in strategy processing and test processing as responsible for success on subsequent memory tests. I purport that it is this overlap that is chiefly responsible for the wide success of strategy instruction, rather than the particular techniques employed. As has already been described in Chapter 2, strategy instruction researchers test students for their explicit retrieval of instructional material. These tests are guided by elaborative processes, and it is not surprising that elaborative instructional tasks effect higher test outcomes. A more complete explanation of the benefits to testing that certain strategies effect requires a clearer understanding of the mediating processes of both the strategy and the test. Certainly, examining strategies from this perspective will elucidate how strategies effect performance, and identify processes specific to particular types of strategies and tests. Further, researchers such as Foos and Fisher (1988) have stated that test taking itself should be perceived as a means of increasing rather than simply monitoring learning. When tests are constructed with more consideration to matching instruction and retrieval processes, there is more likelihood that students test-taking performance will increase and hence the measure of learning in the classroom will also increase. Learning in the classroom is largely defined by performance outcomes on a variety of assessment procedures-- essays, projects, labs, portfolios and exams. Thus, learning may likely show marked improvements if the way children are assessed match the way they were instructed. Informing educators about explicit and implicit assessment practices, the processes specific to types of retrieval, and ways of effecting the appropriate transfer of processing between instruction and testing may prove to be one way of enhancing learning in the classroom setting. E. Conclusions The findings presented in this thesis provide support for the idea that explicit and implicit tests can indeed reveal the same pattern of effects when processing is elaborative on both tests. Category production tests more closely resemble the elaborative processing required by explicit tests than other implicit tests, such as word identification that is mediated by more perceptual, integrative processes. Given this finding, the effects of T. A. P. as a framework for explaining memory performance on two tests was elucidated, rather than only the deliberate or non-deliberate nature of the retrieval instructions. Further, this investigation provided evidence in support of integrating research from complementary areas of memory and learning to facilitate our understanding of classroom learning. The strategy instruction literature provided only part of the story, that of instructional conditions, but the explicit and implicit memory research revealed effects of different retrieval processes also, and their effect on different encoding conditions. By integrating these two lines of work, learning may be viewed as a continuum. Learning is not just a matter of instructional strategies, but the compatibility between how students are instructed and how they are assessed for that instruction. The continuum is that of instruction on one end and retrieval on the other, with the mediating processes in between. The specific types of mediating processes and their role in classroom instruction and testing will provide areas of stimulating research for years to come. REFERENCES Adler, T. (1993). Children can match adults on implicit memory tasks. APA Monitor, 24. Besson, M., Fischler, I., Boaz, T., & Raney, G. (1992). Effects of automatic associative activation on explicit and implicit memory tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 89-105. Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 657- 668. Bower, J. S. & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Implicit memory and test awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 404-416. Bullard, J., Bauman, F., Gore, G., McCammon, B, & Sieben, G. (1985). Science probe 8, (pp. 373-406). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Buller, T. (1990). Implicit and explicit memory in preschoolers. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of British Columbia. Craik, F. I . M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11,671- 684. Farnham-Diggory, S. (1992). The learning-disabled child (pp. 55-70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Foos, P. W. & Fisher, R. P. (1988). Using tests as learning opportunities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 179- 183. Graf, P. (1990). Life-span changes in implicit and explicit memory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 353-358. Graf, P. (1991). Implicit and explicit memory: An old model for new findings. In W. Kessen, A. Ortony, and F. Craik (Eds.), Memories, thoughts and emotions: Essays in honour of George Mandler (pp. 135-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Graf, P. & Mandler, G. (1984). Activation makes words more accessible, but not necessarily more retrievable. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 553-568. Graf, P. & Ryan, L. (1990). Transfer appropriate processing for implicit and explicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 978-992. Graf, P. & Schacter, D. L. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11,501 - 518. Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1989). Unitization and grouping mediate dissociations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 930-940. Graf, P., Squire, L. R., & Mandler, G. (1984). The information that amnesic patients do not forget. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 164-178. Graves, A. W., & Levin, J. R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 232 - 236. Greenbaum, J. L. & Graf, P. (1989). Preschool period development of implicit and explicit remembering. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 417-420. Hamann, S.B. (1990). Level of processing effects in conceptually driven implicit tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 970-977. Hayman, C. A. G. & Tuving, E. (1989). Contingent dissociation between recognition and fragment completion: The method of triangulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 228-240. Jacoby, L. L. (1983). Remembering the data: Analyzing interactive processes in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22,485-508. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110,306-340. King-Sears, M. E., Mercer, C. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (1992). Toward independence with keyword mnemonics: A strategy for science vocabulary instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 22-33. Kolers, P. A. (1975). Memorial consequences of automatic encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 689-701. Light, L. L. & Singh, A. (1987). Implicit and explicit memory in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 531-541. Lorsbach, C. & Worman, L. (1989). The development of explicit and implicit forms of memory in learning disabled children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14 67-76. MacLeod, C. M., & Bassili, J. (1989). Are implicit and explicit tests differentially sensitive to item-specific versus relational information? In S. Lewandowsky, J. C. Dunn, & K. Kirsner (Eds.), Implicit memory: Theoretical issues (pp. 159-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mandler, G. (1990). Your face looks familiar but I can't remember your name: A review of dual process theory. In W. E. Hockley and S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays in honour of Bennett B. Murdoch (pp. 207-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1990). Mnemonic social studies instruction: Classroom applications. Remedial and Special Education, 10,40-46. Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1991). Teaching students ways to remember: Strategies for learning mnemonically. Purdue University: Brookline Books. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Brigham, F. J. (1992). A complex mnemonic strategy for teaching states and their capitals: Comparing forward and backward associations. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7,96-103. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 16, 519-533. Parkin, A. J. (1989). The development and nature of implicit memory. In S. Lewandowsky, J. C. Dunn, and K. Kirsner (Eds.), Implicit memory: Theoretical issues (pp. 231-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Parkin, A. J. & Streete, S. (1988). Implicit and explicit memory in young children and adults. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 361-369. Penner, L. (1987). Sunlight on the earth and moon: A library research unit. Langley: School District #35. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91-109. Putnam, M. L. (1992). Characteristics of questions on tests administered by mainstream secondary classroom teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 129-136. Roediger, H. L. Ill (1990). Implicit Memory: Retention without remembering. American Psychology, 45, 1043-1056. Roediger, H. L. Ill and Blaxton, T. A. (1987). Retrieval modes produce dissociations in memory for surface information. In D. S. Gorfein and R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Ebbinghaus centennial conference (pp, 349-379). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Roediger, H. L. Ill, Srinivas, K., & Weldon, M. S. (1989). Dissociations between implicit measures of retention. In S. Lewandowsky, J. C. Dunn, and K. Kirsner (eds.), Implicit memory: Theoretical issues (pp.67-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Roediger, H. L. Ill, Weldon, S., & Challis, B. H. (1989). Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. In H. L. Roediger and F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour ofEndel Tulving (pp. 3-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Roediger, H. L. Ill, Weldon, M. S., Stadler, M. L., & Riegler, G. L. (1992). Direct comparison of two implicit memory tests: Word fragment and word stem completion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1251- 1269. Salthouse, T. A. (1992). The information processing perspective on cognitive aging. In R. J.Sternberg and C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 261-277). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 501-518. Schacter, D. L. (1992). Understanding implicit memory: A cognitive neuroscience approach. American Psychologist, 47, 559-569. Schacter, D. L. & Church, B. A. (1992). Auditory priming: Implicit and explicit memory for words and voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 915-930. Schacter, D. L. & Moscovitch, M. (1984). Infants, amnesics, and dissociable memory systems. In M. Moscovitch (Ed.), Infant memory (pp. 173-216). New York: Plenum. Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Classroom applications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. Exceptional Children, 58, 219-229. Snodgrass, J. G. & Hirshman, E. (1994). Dissociations among implicit and explicit memory tasks: The role of stimulus similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 150-160. Squire, L. R. (1986). Mechanisms of memory. Science, 232, 1612-1619. Swanson, H. L. (1986). The effects of organizational dimension on memory for words in learning disabled and non-disabled readers. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 155- 162. Swanson, H. L. (1990). Executive processing differences between learning-disabled, mildly retarded, and normal achieving children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 549- 563. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press. Weldon, M. S., & Roediger, H. L. (1987). Altering retrieval demands reverses the picture superiority effect. Memory and Cognition, 15, 269-280. Wertlieb, E. C. (1990). Automatic and purposive semantic processing in learning disabled individuals. The Journal of Special Education^ 2.^450-462. Woloshyn, V., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Educational Psychology, 86,79-89. Woloshyn, V., Pressley, M., Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative interrogation and prior knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 115-124. Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children's learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82^ 741-748. 49 APPENDIX A Target Space Fact Items The sun is made up mainly of hydrogen gas One way the sun affects weather is by heating the air. Many ancient people worshipped the sun as a god called Apollo. Plants use energy from the sun to grow. The moon is made of grey rock. The moon is covered in dust. There are craters on the moon. There is no air on the moon. There are nine planets in our solar system. Mars is a planet that has a pink sky. There are sand dunes on Mars. Saturn is a planet that has rings around it. Long ago, people thought the earth was flat. The earth is surrounded by the atmosphere which is a huge amount of air. Rivers on earth move towards the oceans. The top and bottom of the earth are covered in snow. Stars have many colors. Stars can be found in pairs. The Big Dipper is a large group of stars. Stars are in the sky all the time, even in the daytime. Meteors are solid rocks in space. Meteors move really fast. Meteors move in any direction in space. Meteors are very old. APPENDIX B Questions for the Interrogative Elaboration Instructional Condition Practice fact and questions: Elephants live very long lives. Q: Do elephants die quite young? Q: Do you think elephants are as old as your grandparent s ? Q: Do you think elephants are older than worms? Sun Space Fact: One way the sun affects weather is by heating the air. Is the weather affected by the sun cooling the air? Does the sun heat the air? If the sun heats the air, does this affect the weather? Space Fact: Plants use the energy from the sun to grow. Are plants afraid of the sun? Do plants like the sun? Does the sun help plants grow big and strong? Space Fact: Many ancient people worshipped the sun as a god called Apollo. Long ago, did people worship the sun? Did they have another name for the sun? Was the sun called Apollo? Space Fact: The sun is made mainly of hydrogen gas. Is the sun made mainly of snow? Is the sun made mainly of gas? Is the sun made mainly of hydrogen gas? Moon Space Fact: The moon is made of grey rock. Is the moon made of cheese? Is the moon made of purple rock? Is the moon made of grey rock? Space Fact: The moon is covered in dust. Is the moon covered in mud? Is the moon covered in snow? Is the moon covered in dust? Space Fact: There are craters on the moon. Are there deep round pits on the moon? Are these round pits called craters? Is there lots of water in these craters? Space Fact: There is no air on the moon. Do you think there is wind on the moon? Do you think there would be things blowing around on the moon? If you visited the moon, do you think you could breathe? Planets Space Fact: Mars is a planet that has a pink sky. Is there a planet called Mars? Does Mars have a yellow sky? Does Mars have a pink sky? Space Fact: Jupiter is a planet that is very big. Is Jupiter a planet? If you lived on Jupiter, would it take a long time to travel around the planet? Is Jupiter a big planet? Space Fact: There are sand dunes on Mars. Is there sand on Mars? Is there snow on Mars? Would a dune buggy be a good thing to have on Mars? Space Fact: There are nine planets in our solar system. Are there other planets in our solar system? Are there five planets in our solar system? Are there nine planets in our solar system? arth Space Fact: Long ago, people used to think the earth was flat. If you lived long ago, do you think you would have known the earth was round? If you lived long ago, do you think you would have thought that you might drop of the earth? Do you think people, long ago, thought the earth was flat? Space Fact: The earth is surrounded by the atmosphere which is a huge amount of air. Is the atmosphere like a huge amount of air? Does the atmosphere help us live on the earth? Is the atmosphere all around the earth? Space fact: Rivers on the earth move towards the oceans. If you were on a river for a very long time, do you think you would finally get to the ocean? If you were a leaf flowing along the river, do you think you'd end up in the mountains? Do you think the rivers move towards the oceans? Space fact: The top and bottom of the earth are covered with snow. If you lived at the top or bottom of the earth, would you have to wear a toque? If you lived on the top and bottom of the earth, would you be able to build an igloo? If you lived at the top and bottom of the earth, would you be able to go to the beach? Space Fact: Stars have many colours. Are stars colourless? Are stars all black? Are stars colourful? Space Fact: Stars are in the sky all the time, even in the daytime. Are stars only in the sky at night? Do stars stay in the sky all the time? In the daytime, are there still stars in the sky? Space Fact: Stars can be found in pairs. Are all stars by themselves? Can stars be found in twos? Can stars be found with a partner? Space Fact: The Big Dipper is a large group of stars, Is the Big Dipper a spaceship? Is the Big Dipper a star group? Is the Big Dipper just a little group of stars? Meteors Space fact: Meteors are solid rocks in space. If you could feel a meteor, would it be hard? Do you think meteors are soft and mushy? If you could throw a meteor, do you think it might break a window? Space fact: Meteors move really fast. If you could ride on a meteor, do you think it would take long to get somewhere? Do you think you could catch a meteor? Do you think meteors move really fast? Space fact: Meteors move in any direction in space. Do you think it would be easy to follow a meteor? Do meteors only move one way? Do meteors move in all directions in space? Space Fact: Meteors are very old. If you were alive when a meteor was created, would you be very old today? Are meteors older than your grandparents? Do you think meteors are as old as the dinosaurs? 54 APPENDIX C Composition of Stimulus Cards Card A: Rivers on earth move towards the oceans. One way the sun affects weather is by heating the air. Stars have many colors. Meteors are very old. The moon is made of grey rock. Mars is a planet that has a pink sky. Card B: The earth is surrounded by the atmosphere which is a huge amount of air. Plants use the energy from the sun to grow. Meteors move really fast. Stars are in the sky all the time, even in the daytime. Jupiter is a planet that is very big. There is no air on the moon. Card C: There are sand dunes on Mars. Many ancient people worshipped the sun as a god called Apollo. Meteors move in any direction in space. The moon is covered in dust. Stars can be found in pairs. Long ago, people thought the earth was flat. Card D: The sun is made up mainly of hydrogen gas. There are nine planets in our solar system. Meteors are solid rocks in space. The Big Dipper is a large group of stars. The top and bottom of the earth are covered with snow. There are craters on the moon. APPENDIX D Directions for Instruction across Experimental Conditions Read Aloud Hi, and . What we're going to do today is to read some facts together that scientists have discovered about outer space. The facts are written on two cards that we'll be reading. I'd like you to read aloud with me, slowly and carefully, each of the facts presented on the cards. Okay? Do you have any questions first? All right, here are some facts that scientists have found out about space... (present cards, read fact aloud along with students, then pause for several seconds, before proceeding to next fact). There, hope you both found out some interesting facts about space (after both cards have been read). Interrogative Elaboration Hi and . What we're going to do today is to read some facts together that scientists have discovered about outer space. After we've read each fact, I'm going to ask three questions about that fact, to which you just answer "yes" or "no". Okay? Let's just practice this with one fact which isn't about space. Say for example the fact was "Elephants live very long lives", three questions I could ask you about that fact are: "Do elephants die quite young?" And what would you answer? (no) (experimenter monitors accuracy of response and understanding). Another question may be "Do you think elephants are as old as your grandparents?" (yes), and "Do you think elephants are older than worms?" (yes). Okay? Then, after we've gone through all the facts on both these cards I'd like you each to make a poster including as many of the facts as you can, whatever way you want. Okay? Do you have any questions? Okay, the first fact is... (present fact, pause, then ask questions, pause after each question and before next fact presentation). APPENDIX E Stories and Questions for Category Production Implicit Test Sun A little girl Carrie and her friend Mark were walking home from school on a very hot Summer day. They were trying to decide if they should go to Carrie's house for lemonade, or head straight for the outdoor swimming pool because it was so hot. Instead of deciding where to go, Carrie and Mark began discussing the sun, since it was so hot out. What are five things Carrie and Mark might have said about the sun? Moon Jessie and her dad went camping last weekend. Every night that they were camping, they had a cozy fire, and roasted marshmallows and drank hot chocolate. On the last night of the camping trip, there was a full moon. It looked so big and beautiful in the dark night sky. While Jessie's dad was roasting marshmallows for them both, he asked Jessie if she knew anything about the moon. Jessie said she knew lots, and began to tell her dad. Can you tell me five things that Jessie might have told her dad about the moon? Planets Robbie and Stephanie were at the mall one weekend with their parents. They came across this really neat store that sold all kinds of science stuff. There were books, and mobiles, and pens and mugs with pictures on them. But the best thing in the store was this display of all the planets in our solar system. Can you tell me five things about the planets that may have been included in the display at the store? Earth Brian and Tracy were watching a movie about an airplane that somehow got lost in space. The airplane lands on a faraway planet where none of the people that live there know about the earth. The people on the lost airplane make friends with the people on the planet, and tell them a whole bunch of things about the earth. What are five things the people on the airplane may have told the people on the planet about the earth? Stars One Saturday, Jodie and Terry were at the library. They were both trying to decide what books they should borrow. It was a tough decision because they were only allowed to get one book each. Jodie found two books about stars. She liked them both. One had really neat pictures in it, but the other had lots of information about stars. She asked Terry for help. Terry liked the second book better, so Jodie decided on that one, and walked up to the librarian with her library card. Can you think of five things about stars that might have been in the second book? Meteors Laura and Mike were at Science World with their class. They went there as a special trip and both had been really excited and looked forward to the day they left. Mike had heard that there was going to be a special exhibit on meteors, and because he thought meteors were the coolest thing about space, he couldn't wait to see the exhibit. What are five things about meteors Mike might have learned at Science World? Appendix F Analysis of Variance Tables 169.03 66.39 52.64 4.07 30 1 2 2 Repeated Measures ANOVA Tes t by I n s t r u c t i o n a l Condit ion ( incond . ) and Class T e s t s of B e t w e e n - S u b j e c t s E f f e c t s S o u r c e of V a r i a t i o n SS DF WITHIN CELLS INCOND CLASS INCOND BY CLASS T e s t s i n v o l v i n g 'TEST' W i t h i n - S u b j e c t E f f e c t S o u r c e of V a r i a t i o n WITHIN CELLS TEST INCOND BY TEST CLASS BY TEST INCOND BY CLASS BY TEST One-Way ANOVA Priming by Instructional Condition and Class Source of Variation Main Effects INCOND CLASS 2-Way Interactions INCOND CLASS Explained Residual Total MS 5.63 66.39 26.32 2.03 F 11.78 4.67 .36 Sig of F .002* .017* .700 SS 38.43 1.19 .92 6.12 4.15 DF 30 1 1 2 2 MS 1.28 1.19 .92 3.06 2.07 F .93 .72 2.39 1.62 Sig of F .342 .403 .109 .215 SS 65.670 23.040 45.420 14.788 14.788 80.458 78.514 158.972 DF 3 1 2 2 2 5 30 35 MS 21.890 23.040 22.710 7.394 7.394 16.092 2.617 4.542 F 8.364 8.804 8.677 2.825 2.825 6.149 Sig of F .000 .006* .001* .075 .075 .000 One-Way ANOVA Baseline Measure by Instructional Condition and Class Source of Variation Main Effects INCOND CLASS 2-Way Interactions INCOND CLASS Explained Residual Total SS .600 .265 .350 .870 .870 1.469 9.281 10.750 DF 3 1 2 2 2 5 30 35 MS .200 .265 .175 .435 .435 .294 .309 .307 F .646 .856 .565 1.405 1.405 .950 Sig of F .592 .362 .574 .261 .261 .464 Repeated Measures ANOVA Test by Instructional Condition Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Source of Variation SS DF MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 232.03 34 6.82 INCOND 66.13 1 66.13 9.69 .004* Tests involving 'TEST' Within-Subject Effect Source of Variation WITHIN CELLS TEST INCOND BY TEST SS 48.03 .35 3.12 DF 34 1 1 MS 1.41 .35 3.12 F .25 2.21 Sig of F .623 .146 60 One-way ANOVA Priming by Instructional Condition Source of Variation Main Effects INCOND Explained Residual Total ss 20.250 20.250 20.250 138.722 158.972 DF 1 1 1 34 35 MS 20.250 20.250 20.250 4.080 4.542 F 4.963 4.963 4.963 Sig of F .033 .033* .033 61 Appendix G Mean Percent of Target Items Produced Across Categories and Classes Category Sun Moon Planets Earth Stars Meteors Class 1 15.0 4 5 . 0 5 .0 0 4 5 . 0 3 5 . 0 2 1 0 . 0 30 .0 2 6 . 5 6 . 5 5 0 . 0 4 6 . 5 3 1 8 . 0 72 .4 45 .5 0 7 7 . 5 5 4 . 5 Appendix H Frequency of Items Recalled and Produced Across Categories Items Studied and Recalled Across Categories Item Category SUNi One way the sun affects weather is by heating the air. 1 2.8 Plants use the energy from the sun to grow. 2 5.6 Many ancient people worshipped the sun as a god called Apollo. 9 25.0 The sun is made mainly of hydrogen gas. 6 16.7 Category MOONi The moon is made of grey rock. There is no air on the moon. The moon is covered in dust. There are craters on the moon. 9 4 8 7 2 5 . 0 1 1 . 1 2 2 . 2 1 9 . 4 Category PLANETS'. Mars is a planet that has a pink sky. Jupiter is a planet that is very big. There are sand dunes on Mars. There are nine planets in our solar system. 13 6 7 4 36.1 16.7 10.4 11.1 Category EARTHi Rivers on earth move towards the oceans. The earth is surrounded by the atmosphere which is a huge amount of air. Long ago, people thought the earth was flat. The top and bottom of the earth is covered with snow. 19.4 1 4 1 2 . 8 1 1 . 1 2 . 8 Category STARS: Stars have many colours. Stars are in the sky all the time, even in the daytime. Stars can be found in pairs. The Big Dipper is a large group of stars. 11 7 6 1 3 0 . 6 1 9 . 4 1 6 . 7 2 . 8 Category METEORS: Meteors are very old. Meteors move really fast. Meteors move in any direction is space. Meteors are solid rocks in space. 5 3 3 5 13.9 8 .3 8 .3 13.9 Note: f refers to the frequency of responses received out of 36 analyzed cases. 11 8 5 9 30.6 22.2 13.9 25.0 Items Studied and Produced Across Categories Item Category SUNi One way the sun affects weather is by heating the air. 1 2.8 Plants use the energy from the sun to grow. 0 0 Many ancient people worshipped the sun as a god called Apollo. 2 5.6 The sun is made mainly of hydrogen gas. 8 22.2 Category MOON: The moon is made of grey rock. There is no air on the moon. The moon is covered in dust. There are craters on the moon. Category PLANETS: Mars is a planet that has a pink sky. Jupiter is a planet that is very big. There are sand dunes on Mars. There are nine planets in our solar system. Category EARTH: Rivers on earth move towards the oceans. 0 0 The earth is surrounded by the atmosphere which is a huge amount of air. 0 0 Long ago, people thought the earth was flat. 0 0 The top and bottom of the earth is covered with snow. 1 2.8 Category STARS: Stars have many colours. Stars are in the sky all the time, even in the daytime. Stars can be found in pairs. The Big Dipper is a large group of stars. Category METEORS: Meteors are very old. Meteors move really fast. Meteors move in any direction is space. Meteors are solid rocks in space. 10 6 2 1 27.8 16.7 5 . 6 2 . 8 15 9 10 4 41.7 25.0 27.8 11.1 5 12 6 12 13.9 33.3 16.7 33.3 Note: f refers to the frequency of responses received out of 36 analyzed cases. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087489/manifest

Comment

Related Items