UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Recall of narrative material in five year olds White, William B. 1977

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 W49.pdf [ 2.5MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094468.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094468-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094468-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094468-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094468-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094468-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094468-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094468-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094468.ris

Full Text

RECALL OF NARRATIVE MATERIAL IN FIVE YEAR OLDS 'by WILLIAM B. WHITE B.A., Western Washington S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1972 •A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n .THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Decenber, 1977 © W i l l i a m B. White, 1977 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission f o r ex t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department o f E a r l y Childhood Education The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date /2><a^/^_ /?77 ABSTRACT The r e c a l l performances of two groups (n= 16 i n each) of kindergarten children (ages 4-11 to 5-10) who encountered narrative material under two different conditions were compared. The children who enacted the story with puppets while listening to i t recalled significantly more story elements and both ex-p l i c i t and implicit information than did children who merely listened to the story narration. This was the case at post tests given 30 seconds and one week after the narrative material was encountered. Alternative interpretation of the results are discussed and suggestions about pedagogical implications and future studies are provided. I l l TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES V LIST OF FIGURES v i AC^OWIHXM'ENTS v i i I INTRODUCTION 1 General Problem and Delimitation 2 II THEORETICAL ORIGINS OF THE PROBLEM 3 Review of Related Literature 3 Derivation of Basis for Present Study 7 III DERIVATION OF OJERENT POSTULATES AND HYPOTHESES 9 Hypotheses 10 IV METHODS 11 Subjects 11 Apparatus 13 Procedure 14 Introduction of Subjects 16 Passive Experience Group 16 Active Experience Group 16 a. Training Session 16 b. Listening to Brief Story 19 Post Test-1 19 Post Test-2 21 a. Part One 21 b. Part Two 22 Analysis 22 V RESULTS ' 24 Analysis of Data, Part One: Evaluation of Hypothesis One, Two, and Three 25 Analysis of Data, Part Two: Evaluation of Hypothesis Four, Five, and Six 28 Analysis of Data, Part Three: Evaluation,. . of Answers, PT-2, Part Two 31 Analysis of Data, Part Four: Evaluation of Teachers' Rating of Ab i l i t y ; and Age of Children Between Groups— 32 VT DISCUSSION 34 Interpretation and Tmpl-ieations 34 i v Page BIBLIOGRAPHY 37 APPENDIX A 44 APPENDIX B 46 APPENDIX C 47 APPENDIX D 48 APPENDIX E 49 APPENDIX F 50 APPENDIX G 51 APPENDIX H 52 V LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I Teachers' Ratings o f A b i l i t y : Data by Schools 12 I I Age and Sex: Data by Schools 13 I I I Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on Category Measure by C h i l d r e n i n AE and PE Groups a t PT-1 25 TV Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on E x p l i c i t Information Measure by C h i l d r e n i n AE and PE Groups a t PT-1 26 V Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on I m p l i c i t Information Measure by C h i l d r e n i n 7AE and PE Groups a t PT-1 27 VT Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on Category Measure by C h i l d r e n i n AE and PE Groups a t PT-2 . . 28 VTI Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on E x p l i c i t Information Measure by C h i l d r e n i n AE and PE Groups a t PT-2.' 29 VTII Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on I m p l i c i t Information Measure by C h i l d r e n i n 7AE and PE Groups a t PT-2 30 IX Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on Answers by C h i l d r e n i n AE and PE Groups a t PT-2, P a r t Two 31 X Ratings o f A b i l i t y : Data by Group 32 XI Age and Sex o f C h i l d r e n : Data by Group , 33 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page OUTLINE OF PROCEDURE 15 JCKN0WLiFJX5EME!NTS Great appreciation i s not enough to extend to those who have given me their effort, cooperation, ideas, time and friendship. >I wish to thank Mrs. Stewart at the Cypress House Day Care; Dr. J. Albert at Pentacare; and Miss E. Silver at the Child Study Centre, for allowing me to use their time and f a c i l i t i e s . FxurUiermore, I wish to thank those children who so willingly participated i n this study. Research, reviews, editing, s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, support and general writing at times can be a chore. However, a l l these were eased because of three warm people: A special thanks to Dr. K. Murray, my advisor; my gratitude to Dr. P. A r l i n , whose advice and concern helped me to achieve especially i n the early stages of this study; and f i n a l l y , i n appreciation to Dr. L. Travis, whose wisdom, encouragement, inspirations, and suggestions so readily given, I am deeply indebted to. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTICN 1 I t has been re p o r t e d t h a t young c h i l d r e n ' s (as d e f i n e d i n Appendix A) a b i l i t y t o r e c a l l some types o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s not as e f f i c i e n t as t h a t o f t h e i r e l d e r s (Danner & T a y l o r , 1973; J a b l o n s k i , 1974, K a i l , 1976). I n order t o f i n d methods o f improving t h i s r e c a l l a b i l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y where i t might apply i n school s i t u a t i o n s , some w r i t e r s have presented m a t e r i a l i n what i s considered t o be the c h i l d r e n ' s p r e f e r r e d mode ( B r u i n i k s & C l a r k , 1970; Dauzat, 1970; W i l l i a m s , W i l l i a m s , & Blumberg, 1973). G e n e r a l l y , the mode o f p r e s e n t a t i o n i n s t u d i e s has f o l l o w e d t h a t which i s u s u a l l y found i n school i n s t r u c t i o n : v i s u a l and/or v e r b a l forms. Recent r e s e a r c h (Brown, 1975; P a r i s & Lindauer, 1976) has been concerned w i t h the younger c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y t o r e c a l l n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l i n the form o f s h o r t prose passages. Again, the mode o f p r e s e n t a t i o n s t i l l appears i n v i s u a l o r v e r b a l form, although, sortie v i s u a l forms i n c l u d e p i c t u r e s i n s t o r y sequence, much l i k e the form o f a comic s t r i p (e.g. Brown, 1975). I t appears, then, t h a t researchers a r e s t i l l f o l l o w i n g school i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods o f p r e s e n t i n g m a t e r i a l i n v i s u a l o r v e r b a l forms. The a l t e r n a t i v e o f c o n c e n t r a t i n g on c h i l d development f a c t o r s , which may suggest other means o f maximizing r e c a l l o f m a t e r i a l t h a t c h i l d r e n encounter (and a l t e r n a t i v e procedures which change the manner i n which c h i l d r e n assimulate and organ i z e the m a t e r i a l one expects them t o r e c a l l ) , may be more f r u i t f u l . Jean P i a g e t (1967) has p o s t u l a t e d s i x stages o f development which mark the appearance o f s u c c e s s i v e l y c o n s t r u c t e d s t r u c t u r e s (motor o r -2 intellectual and affective), which are the organizational forms of mental activity. A five year old child, according to Piaget (see F l a v e l l , 1963), would possibly be i n a subperiod of simple representations or intuitions, and may s t i l l be more e f f i c i e n t with sensory-motor activity (which may be related to learning), especially i f his past experience has been mostly sensory-motor (physical activity with action on objects). Piaget (e.g. F l a v e l l , 1963) has also postulated that a child should interact directly with his material and social environment; that i s he should i n particular touch, fe e l , and otherwise be actively engaged i n his surroundings i f he i s to learn effectively. General Problem and Delimitation The present study i s based on the proposition that instruction geared toward a child's active engagement with material w i l l enhance his r e c a l l of information about that material. Specifically, an instruc-tional method entailing a sensory-motor. (physical activity with action on objects) organization of information by each child i s prepared as a treatment which may be superior to one i n which the child merely listens to the information prior to testing for r e c a l l . This study was limited to an investigation of the r e c a l l performance of children i n an enactive experience approach (as defined i n /Appendix A), as compared to children i n a passive experience approach (as defined i n Appendix A). This study compares free r e c a l l performances between two such groups. 3 CHAPTER II THEORETICAL ORIGINS OF THE PROBLEM Review of•Related Literature Recently, narrative material has become the focus.for research on children's free r e c a l l . Narrative materials are often presented i n sentence or brief story form. Indications are that young children exhibit poor r e c a l l of such material (Brown, 1975; Brown & Smiley, 1977; Paris & Lindauer, 1976; Paris & Upton, 1976). Young children's poor r e c a l l i s often attributed to either (a) their age (Brown, 1975; .Banner •& Taylor, 1973; Ehri, 1976; Elkind, 1971; F l a v e l l , 1971; Rosenberg, Jarvella, & Cross, 1971)., (b) the handicaps of early forms of egocentriclsm; (Anastasiow, 1971; Brown, 1975; Elkind, 1971; Piaget, 1969); (c) their r e l a t i v e l y Tinderdeveloped coding system (Elkind, 1971; Lange & Jackson, 1974; Locke, 1973; Millar, 1972; Piaget, 1976; Piaget & Inhelder, .1973; Trabasso & Riley,.1973), or (d) the absence of learned strategies.: (Chi, .1976; F l a v e l l , 1971; Kristzer, Leonard, & F l a v e l l , 1975; Paris & Lindauer, 1976). The information from narrative material which children do r e c a l l i s more often e x p l i c i t than :iirplicit (Paris & Lindauer, 1976; Stein & Glenn, 1975). Moreover, they appear to te.more adroit at reconstructing or re-cognizing pictoral content than they are at recalling verbal material (Brown, 1975). Not surprisingly, these findings have moved some research-ers to ask how performance might be improved. Attempts to discover means of improving r e c a l l performance have produced the following conclusions: F i r s t , r e c a l l may be increased i f children are told to remember rather than merely l i s t e n (Yussen, Gangne, Garrrulo, & Kunen, 1974), or i f they 4 are instructed to look for ways that (stimulus) items go together (Rosner, 1971). Second, rather than leaving young children to their own devices (not instructing the children on what to do), i f one manipulates or effectively induces the adoption of learning strategies (instructing the children or requiring them to do something in connection with the presented material), some of which include rehearsing, imagining, or touching, performance improves (Danner & Taylor, 1973; Levin, Ghatola, DeRose, Wilder, & Norton, 1975; Levin, Lesgold, Shimron, & Guttman, 1975; Paris & Lindauer, 1976; Paris & Upton, 1976; Tenney, 1975; Wilder, 1971). Third, i f children are forced to code i n specific ways (Trabasso & Riley, 1973) or given a code to work with (Cannizzaro, Cecchini, & Musatti, 1975), performance i s increased (within specified age ranges). Fourth, and last, but for the present study not least significant i s the evidence which suggests that the methods of presenting material may i n -fluence the amount recalled (Bijou, 1976; Brown, 1975; Debes, 1974; Hoving, Konick, & Wallace, 1975; Lehman, 1972; Stacy & Ross, 1975; Trabasso & Riley, 1973; Tulving, 1968; Underwood & Freund, 1968; VanDam, Peeck, Brinkerink, & Gorter, 1974; Webster & Cox, 1974; Wilder-& Levin, 1973). Reflection devoted to the last point suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y that the method of encoding information from narrative may be a source of the d i f f i c u l t i e s young children experience in attempts to r e c a l l such material. ELkind (1971), for instance, suggests that young children may devise their own coding system for language and (xrartunication. Similarly, Jablonski (1974), reported that, "There i s l i t t l e evidence to suggest that the encoding schemes of children w i l l follow those of adults..." (pg. 253). 5 However, the nature of children's encoding processes'is not well understood. There are several disputes over the nature of children's encoding practices. Some writers report evidence of children's a b i l i t y to encode material i n specific as well as i n more general taxonomic classes (Kail, 1976), even though their verbal concepts are less well organized and relatively imprecise as compared with those of their elders (Lange & Jackson, 1974; Saltz, Dunin-Markiewicz & Rourke, 1975). Others c i t e evidence (Ehri, 1976; Jablonski, 1974) which causes them to deemphasize the organizational differences and emphasize the role of experience, such as the production deficiency model which suggests that mediators are available for children to use, but are not used by them unless continually prompted to do so (see Jablonski, 1974). Perhaps both organizational immaturity and inexperience i n using conceptual systems are implicated i n young children's d i f f i c u l t i e s i n recalling verbal narrative material. In other words, the young children's relatively unintegrated or fragmented conceptual systems might produce encoding d i f f i c u l t i e s not faced by an older person whose conceptual systems are more coherent and better organized. In any case, children's encoding practices may hamper r e c a l l . In addition to the above, young children's encoding procedures may also be restricted by their egocentric nature. F l a v e l l , (1963) defining egocentrism, states that "It denotes a cognitive state i n which the cognizer sees the world from a single point of view only-his own-but without knowledge of the existence of viewpoints or perspectives and, a f o r t i o r i , without awareness that he i s a prisoner of his own." (pg. 60) Furtherrrore, Kamii (1975) suggests that because of this egocentric r nature, the re a l i t y the child sees i s not the same re a l i t y the adult sees. 6 What the c h i l d percieves and attends to may not be what an adult i s seeking when asking a child to r e c a l l information. 7An example of this was apparent i n a recent study by Brown and Smiley (1977), who reported that the units i n prose passages judged most important by young children dominated their r e c a l l attempts. Therefore, a child's egocentric nature may not allow him to abide by rules from without and only attend to i n -formation that interests him. Thus, this may also be an explanation . for some of his poor r e c a l l performance. (Brown, 1975; Elkind, 1971; Piaget, 1969). To return to the question of what might improve r e c a l l performance, one can take account of those studies which have reported performance gains of various kinds, as a consequence of inducing motor activity. Levin, Ghatala, DeRose, Wilder, and Norton (1975), for example, reported that motor-induced imagery appeared to constitute a highly effective d i s c r i -mination learning strategy (with children i n the f i f t h and sixth grades). Moreover, Therrien (1977) has shown how use of play improved r e c a l l of story sequence. Similarly, Rubin and Pollack (1969) taught kindergarten boys to play games with objects as sounds, and i n this way increased their auditory perception. Rubin and Pollack (1969) emphasized the effect of visual and visual-motor experience i n the five year olds' a b i l i t y to intergrade multi-modal inputs. Likewise, Penman, Christopher, and Wood (1977) reported that learning to use capitalization and punctuation by third grade children was greater when active games involving physical body movement and involvement was used as compared to a passive (seat work) presentation and a control group (not receiving any special pre-sentation) . Furthermore, other researchers have generally reported that inducement of active motor movement usually seems to produce superior performance over other teaching strategies such as those which rely x heavily on visual and oral presentation (Jones, 1972'; Levin, McCabe, & Bender, 1975; Paris & Lindauer, 1976; Silvern & Yawkey, 1977). Further, visual encounters entailing the presentation of visual stimuli appear to be associated with performances which are superior to those connected with aural presentation. This was the case i n learning word recognition (Dauzat, 1970), i n learning paired associate word l i s t s (Bruiniks & Clark 1970; Drew & Brooks, 1976; Reese, 1965; Pohwer, 1970), and in following directions (Williams, Williams, & Blumberg, 1973) . Piaget has related the idea of active engagement with the environ-ment as possibly being connected to cognitive development (Flavell, 1963). In addition, Inhelder, Sinclair, and Bovet (1974) suggest that active engagement may be related to encoding, organizing, and r e c a l l . Furthermore, Bruner (1964) has reported that enactive representation of information ontologically preceeds symbolic representation, where enactive representation i s defined as, "a mode of representing past events through appropriate motor response." (pg. 2). It appears then that these authors suggest the entailment of enactive engagement with material for cognitive development, which may, i n turn, affect r e c a l l . Derivation of Basis for Present Study A review of the literature appears to indicate that performance on memory measures may be improved i f five year olds are induced to encode and organize information through their own physical intercourse with the subject matter. Bruner (1964), in discussing memory, states that, "...memory i s not storage of past experience, but rather the re-t r i e v a l of what i s relevant i n some useable form." (pg. 2). I t follows that enactive representation, or "a mode of representing past events through appropriate motor responses" (Bruner, 1964, pg. 2), might be expected to enhance children's performance on memory measures which require retrieval of symbolic representations. Such that, enactive representations may entail organization of the information into a system which i s b u i l t on action schemes (Bruner, 1964). 9 CHAPTER I I I DERIVATION OF CURRENT POSTULATES AND HYPOTHESES From a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the l i t e r a t u r e , the f o l l o w i n g p o s t u l a t e s were d e r i v e d : (1) A young c h i l d ' s a c t i o n s c e n t e r h i s a t t e n t i o n on the o b j e c t s of h i s a c t i o n s . (2) A c h i l d ' s own a c t i o n s are a major means by which i n f o r m a t i o n about the world upon which such a c t i o n s are e x e r c i s e d i s a s s i m i l a t e d . (3) A c h i l d ' s a c t i o n s are c e n t r a l t o h i s p o i n t o f view. (4) A c t i o n s on o b j e c t s enhances a s s i m i l a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e ' o b j e c t s . (5) O r g a n i z a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n s i m p l i f i e s r e c a l l o f t h a t .information. (6) Motor a c t i v i t y o r ganizes i n f o r m a t i o n and hence enhances p r o b a b i l i t y o f r e c a l l o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . (7) Motor a c t i v i t y i s a type o f r e h e a r s a l o f c o n s t i t u e n t motor schemes. (8) Rehearsal enhances remote matching performance. (9) R e c a l l i s a form o f matching performance. The f o l l o w i n g i n f e r e n c e i s drawn from the p o s t u l a t e s which are l i s t e d above. Since a c t i o n s a r e the content o f e n a c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and e n a c t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s form a b a s i s o f i c o n i c and symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , r e c a l l o f i n f o r m a t i o n which i s organized through a su b j e c t ' s a c t i o n s may be enhanced due t o such o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t f o l l o w s then, t h a t i f a five year old encountered narrative material and through enactive experi-ence with i t , organized the material through his actions, his re c a l l of that narrative material might be expected to be superior to the r e c a l l of those who merely l i s t e n to a verbal narration of the material. Specifically, i f a child was presented a brief story, and induced to act out that story while listening to i t , his re c a l l of i t may be enhanced. On the basis of the foregoing, the following hypotheses were formulated for this study: Hypotheses (1) At post test one (PT-1) the children acting out a story with puppets while listening to the story (active experience (AE)) would demonstrate significantly more re c a l l of the narrative material than would those children s i t t i n g and listening to the story (passive experience (PE)). (2) At PT-1, the children i n the AE group would demonstrate sig-nificantly more re c a l l of ex p l i c i t information than would those children i n the PE group. (3) At PT-1, the children i n the AE group would demonstrate sig-nificantly more re c a l l of the implicit information than would those children i n the PE group. (4) At PT-2 (one week delayed) , the children i n the AE group would demonstrate significantly more r e c a l l of the narrative material than would those children in the PE group. (5) At PT-2, the children i n the AE group would demonstrate sig-nificantly more re c a l l of the ex p l i c i t information than would those children in the PE group. (6) At PT-2, the children i n the AE group would demonstrate sig-nificantly more r e c a l l of the implicit information than would those children i n the PE group. 11 CHAPTER IV METHODS Subjects A sample of thirty-five children ranging i n age from 4.75 to 5.83 years were selected from three kindergartens i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Ten children were from a private kindergarten. Sixteen were from a university kindergarten; and nine were from a university operated Child Study Centre kindergarten, at the University of Br i t i s h Columbia. The children from the University kindergartens were mostly students drawn from a University housing area whose parents are for the most part graduate students or faculty members at the University. Children from the private kindergarten were reported to be from middle to upper middle class families. A l l children had English as a f i r s t language except one, whose parents spoke Cree at home but who used English quite fluently. One child from •.the* private kindergarten and one from the university kindergarten were dropped because of absence at PT-2. In addition, one child from the university kindergarten was dropped because of non-parti-cipation i n the r e c a l l tests. This made a total of'32 children for the present study. Each ch i l d was randomly assigned to one of two groups with the restriction that children from each school were approximately equal i n each group. Following PT-2, teachers rated (from 1-3) their students on a b i l i t y , 12 performance, intellectual s k i l l s , and overall intelligence. The totals from each of those measures were then grouped for a single score for each child. The scores from each school were then averaged and compared, which do not indicate differences (Cypress House kindergarten as compared to the University kindergarten, t (21) = 1.6, p»>.05; Cypress House as compared to the Child Study Centre, t (16) - 1.22, p>.05; and for the University as compared to the Child Study Centre, t (21) = .188, p>.05). Data from these ratings on a b i l i t y can be seen i n Table 1. TABLE 1 Teachers' Ratings of A b i l i t y : Data by Schools School Range Mean Standard Deviation Cypress House 1.75-2.875 2.22 .471 University 1.812-3.0 2.44 .388 Child Study Centre 2.0-2.875 2.47 .331 Total 1.75-3.0 2.38 .400 The ages of the children i n each school also indicated no significant between School differences (Cypress House as compared to University, t (21) = .05, p>.05; Cypress House as compared to the Child Study Centre, t (16) = .02, p>.05; and for the Child Study Centre as compared to the University kindergarten, t (21)-=-;05, p>.05). Data from the ages, and 13 the sex of the children by schools can be seen i n Table II. TABLE II Age and Sex: Data by Schools School Range Mean Standard Boys Gi r l s Deviation Cypress House 4.92-5.75 5.47 .269 6 3 University 5.08-5.92 5.48 .538 .7 7 Child Study Centre 4.83-5.83 5.47 .518 3 6 Total 4.83-5.92 5.48 .457 16 16 A l l children were tested by a male experimenter. Apparatus Two cotton sock puppets (a deer and a rabbit) were used. The deer was made from a man's dark brown cotton-polyester sock, i t had a round half c i r c l e dark brown leather button for a nose, two round half c i r c l e white plastic buttons for eyes, and antlers cut from l i g h t brown tag board. The rabbit was similar except the eyes were painted pink, there were wiskers below the hose, there.was a white cotton b a l l for a t a i l , there were white ears instead of antlers, and the sock was a lighter brown. A l l items were sewn on except the rabbit's wiskers which were stuck through the sock. 14 A painted set which included colorful scenery mounted on cardboard, was used with the puppets. The scenery was i n two parts. One part stood up and had clouds, h i l l s , grass, trees for a forest, and a house on i t . The other part l a i d f l a t and was a scene of a garden with rows of com, lettuce, carrots and peas. In the l e f t corner was a brown c i r c l e for a hole, and through the middle of the garden was a road which went from the bottom of the picture to the top and then to the right side towards the house. Both parts were placed together to make a folding scene. A tape-recorded narration of forty seconds duration was used, (see Appendix B). The narration was taken from the reading series Rockets (Durr, LeePere & Alsin, 1976, pg. 72). Two alternate stories (see Appendix C) were produced from this source. In the f i r s t revised story the word 'perked' was replaced by the word 'stood'. In the second revision, the words 'perked, rabbit, hopped, and hole', were re-placed by the words 'stood, deer, jumped, and forest'. A Lloyds automatic level control compact cassette tape recorder with an external mike was used both to deliver the narrative material and to record the r e c a l l responses. The experimenter read directions and questions which were i n script from on a single page. The children were" tested i n a room isolated from their class but located within their Kindergarten building. Positioned i n the room was a f l a t table on which was placed the tape recorder, blank tapes, and question sheet. Procedure An outline of the procedure can be seen i n Figure I. 15 FIGURE 1 OUTLINE OF PROCEDURE PE groups-Introduction of Children to Ebqperimenter designation of group discussion of tape recorder ^.AE group-si t t i n g and listening to story ^ 30 second delay training i n use of puppets V Acting story out with puppet while listening to story PT-1 re c a l l 40 seconds to think of story after f i r s t attempt at r e c a l l 4 complete PT-1 I Return to class i 7 day wait I Introduction and begin PT-2, Part One \t 40 seconds to think of story after f i r s t attempt at re c a l l 4 complete PT-2 Part One \t Begin PT-2 Part Two immediately after Part One 4 complete PT-2 Part Two ' 4 return to class 16 A l l children were either introduced to the experimenter i n the classroom and then taken to the testing room, or were brought to the testing room by the teacher and introduced. As soon as the child was introduced, he was asked to s i t down at the table i n the testing room. If the experimenter brought the child into the room, upon entering, the experimenter pointed to a chair and asked the child to s i t down. The experimenter then said, "(Child's name), this i s a tape recorder. Have you ever used one before?" The operation of the tape recorder was discussed. The child was then told, "I have a story on the tape recorder that I would like you to l i s t e n to. Would you li k e to hear i t ? " After the child responded positively, the brief story (as outlined below) was presented. 1. Passive Experience Group After discussion of the tape recorder, each child i n the PE group was told, "Listen very carefully to the story." As soon as the tape recorder was turned on the experimenter again said, "Listen very carefully to the story." When the story was finished, the experimenter, without saying anything, rewound the story tape; took the cassette out of the tape recorder; and put i n a blank tape. This procedure took 30 seconds. PT-1 then began. 2. Active Experience Group a. Training Session For the AE group, after the tape recorder had been discussed the 17 experimenter said, "But f i r s t I would l i k e you to look at something." This began the training session for 7AE children i n the use of a puppet enacting a story. For the training session, i f the child was to li s t e n to a story about a rabbit during the experience condition, the child was given training with a deer puppet. If the experience condition was to be with a deer story, training was with a rabbit puppet. When the training began, the experimenter took out a puppet from a paper sack and put i t on his hand. He then said, "This i s a puppet, what kind of animal do you think i t i s ? " The child responded with "mouse" or "rabbit" for the rabbit puppet; "moose" or "deer" for the deer puppet. The identity for the puppet was established at this time. With the puppet on the experimenter's hand, the experimenter demonstrated how to make the puppet work by making i t breathe, make a face, jump up and down, and run across the table. While the experimenter was doing this he said, "These are some things you can make the puppet do: breathe; make a funny face; jump; or run across the table." As soon as the experimenter finished the demonstration, he said, "Would you li k e to try i t ? " The experimenter then took the puppet off his hand and helped the child put i t on the child's hand. The experimenter then said, "Can you make i t breathe?" The experimenter waited u n t i l the child t r i e d to make the puppet breathe, and said, "That i s very good. What are some other things you can make i t do?" As the child made the puppet move around or do something, the experi-menter reacted to each movement with, "That i s very good. You can really make the puppet do a l o t of things." Only two children needed prompting by the experimenter. For these children the experimenter took the child's hand holding the puppet, and moved the hand around the table, making the puppet jump and run. While doing this the experimenter said, "This i s 18 how you can make the puppet jump, and this i s how you can make the puppet run across the table." The experimenter continued with, "I would like to see how well you can make the puppet act out a sentence while you li s t e n to i t . Would you li k e to try?" Some of the children asked what a sentence was, to which the experimenter responded, "I am going to say some things, and while I say these things can you make the puppet do them?" As soon as the child replied that he or she would try, the experimenter began the sentence. Two sentences were used i n the pre-training condition (see Appendix D). The f i r s t sentence was used to observe the child's responses. If assistance was required the experimenter would take the child's hand and go through the motions of the sentence as i t was being told. The f i r s t sentence was repeated three times, and i n three cases three children needed i t repeated more . than three times. Two children needed the sentence repeated four times; and one child needed the sentence repeated five times. A l l other children were able to make the puppet act out the f i r s t try. When the child experienced d i f f i c u l t y on the f i r s t try the experimenter would say, "Pretend the table i s the woods and over here (pointing) i s the home." After the f i r s t statement was given the third time, and the child was able to act i t out with some movement, the experimenter continued with, "Let's try a different sentence, but this time I won't help you. Do you think you can do i t ? " As soon as the child responded positively, he was told, "Listen very carefully and try to make the puppet do what the sentence says." The experimenter gave the passage. If the child enacted the events represented i n the passage the training was concluded; i f the child had d i f f i c u l t y , as i n one case, i t was repeated. The second statement was repeated twice for five children to insure their proficiency, and four times for one child. b. Listening to Story: After the training, the story was given. The experimenter took the training puppet from the child and put i t back into a paper sack on the floor. He then placed a scenery on the table, brought out the appropriate puppet for the story, and said, "Here i s another puppet, would you like to put this one on?" When the child agreed, the experi-menter helped him put the puppet on his hand and stated, "I am going to play a story that i s on the tape recorder. I want you to make the puppet act out the story while you are listening to the story. Do you think you can do that?" As soon as the child gave a positive response, the experimenter, turning on the tape recorder, stated, "Listen very carefully to the story, and make the puppet do what the story says." As soon as the story was finished, the scenery was removed from sight, the puppet was taken from the child's hand and placed into a paper bag, the story tape was removed from the tape recorder and a blank tape put i n place. This procedure took 30 seconds. PT-1 then began. Post Test-1. When the AE and PE groups were finished listening to the story, and after a 30 second pause (described e a r l i e r ) , PT-1 began. While turning the tape recorder on to record the experimenter stated, "I have some cjuestions I would like to ask you about the story you just heard." "First, can you t e l l the story back to me just as you heard i t ? " If the child was silen t but appeared to be thinking about the story, the experi-menter remained silent u n t i l the child either produced his account of the story or said he could not remember. When he remained s i l e n t for more than twenty seconds the experimenter said, " T e l l me everything or anything you remember about the story." When the child was finished, either by stating he could not remember or through a period of silence (twenty seconds), the experimenter said, "I am going to give you a itvinute to think about the story, and i f there i s anything you would l i k e to t e l l me, or anything you may want to add to what you have already told me, you can do i t then. Think about the story for a niinute." The experimenter turned off the tape recorder at the mike switch and waited forty seconds. When the time had lapsed the experimenter turned the recorder on and said, "Is there anything you want to t e l l me about the story or anything you want to add to what you have already told me?" When the child stated that he had told a l l he remembered, that he was finished, or there was a long period of silence (20 seconds), the experi-menter said, "Is that everything you remember?" After the child responded, the experimenter turned the tape recorder off. For a l l responses, the experimenter responded with 'O.K.' or " a l l right," i f the child asked i f that was right or waited for a reply from the experimenter. As soon as the tape recorder was turned o f f the experimenter said, "Thank'you for listening to the story. I would l i k e you to help me, i f you would. Do you know how you can help me? Don't t e l l anyone in your class what we did i n here today. I f they ask, you can say that you listened to a story on the tape recorder, but you are not supposed to t e l l them the story. Maybe we can make this our secret. O.K.?" When the c h i l d finished answering, the_experimenter told the ch i l d to return to the classroom. This concluded PT-1. 21 Post Test-2 One week after each child had heard the story, he was again tested on his r e c a l l of the story. This comprised PT-2 and i t was composed of two parts. a. Part One Part One was a free r e c a l l test. The experimenter took the child into the same room he had heard the story and asked him to s i t down. The child was then told, "Last week you heard a story on this tape recorder (pointing to the tape recorder). I would l i k e you to t e l l me that story just as you heard i t . " If the child stated.-he could not or that he had forgotten the story, the experimenter said, "Tell me everything or anything you remember about the story." The child then responded, stated he could not remember anything, or remained silent. After twenty seconds of silence the experimenter stated, "I am going to give you a minute to think about the story, and i f there i s anything you would l i k e to t e l l me, or anything you may want to add to what you have already told me, you can do i t then." A l l children able to respond to the f i r s t question were asked, "Is there anything you might have forgotten to t e l l me, or anything you would like to add?" When a child was silent for 20 seconds after responding, or stated he could not remember any more, he was given one minute to think about the story. Following a 40 second interval, the experimenter said, "Is there anything you want to t e l l me about the story or anything you want to add to what you have already told me?" After the child responded and stated he could not remember any more, or said 'no', the f i r s t part of PT-2 was completed. 22 b. Part Two The second part of PT-2 was given immediately after the child's last response to the free r e c a l l test. The experimenter said, "I am going to ask you some questions about the story. The experimenter then began to read a set of questions for the child to answer (see Appendix E). Since some of the questions overlapped, i f a child was able to answer a question that also answered the next question, the second question was not asked. When a l l questions had been asked, the experimenter thanked the child for coming i n again, and asked him not to t e l l his class or friends about the test (as was done at the end of PT-1). At the end of PT-2, each child was asked i f he had kept his secret (of not t e l l i n g his classmates what he had done during the f i r s t story and post test). Each child stated he had not told any of his classmates what he had done. Further, prearrangements were made to support this, in that after the testing of each child (PT-1 and PT-2), the child's teacher was allowed to remind him, i n the classroom, not to discuss the story he had heard. Analysis The story was categorized into Rumelhart's (Stein & Glenn, 1975) schema for analysis of the brief story (Appendix F). As can be seen, this brief story was broken down into 14 categories. Since, either one does or does not r e c a l l a given instance of information, the data was treated as nominal data and re c a l l pf-same was scored as one point while failure to r e c a l l was indicatd by zero. 23 If a child transposed a category but gave the the general meaning, the category was counted as correct. For example, this was the case when the child said, "He went i n a garden" for the statement, 'A l i t t l e brown rabbit (deer) hopped (jumped) into a farmer's garden.' Similarly, the substitution of "He looked for some food" for the statement, 'It looked a l l around for something to eat.' was accepted. Each child received two scores for this procedure, one at PT-1 and one at PT-2. This comprised the counting for total narrative content of the brief story. E x p l i c i t information scores were t a l l i e d using a predetermined l i s t of the e x p l i c i t items i n the passage (see Appendix G). Implicit information scores were obtained i n the same manner as the e x p l i c i t scores from a l i s t of predetermined implicit items (see Appendix H). Because the .hypotheses to be tested were concerned only with results at the end of each post test, a oneway analysis of variance was used for each measure (categories, e x p l i c i t information, and implicit information); the post test measures being the dependent variables and the experimental conditions the independent variables. CHAPTER V RESULTS " The present study was designed to discover whether differences i n r e c a l l performance would be produced by varying the manner in which children interacted with narrative material. Specifically, the study attempted to test the hypotheses that mean r e c a l l performance of children who enacted the narrative (AE) as i t was heard by them would be superior to mean rec a l l performance of children who merely listened (PE) to the same narrative. In order to test these hypotheses, two comparisons of three performances were made between two groups. That i s , performances of two groups at 30 seconds and one week after encounters with the material were compared. To reduce the probability that any difference on performances were attributable to spurious factors, a oneway analysis of variance was used to compare between group differences of age and teachers' ratings of the children's a b i l i t y . The oneway analysis of variance between groups on the three perfor-mance measures (narrative content, ex p l i c i t information, and implicit information), and on both post tests, indicated that the AE group recalled significantly more narrative material, e x p l i c i t information and implicit information than the PE group. Furthermore, between'group comparisons of age and of teachers' ratings of a b i l i t y revealed no significant differences. Analysis of the two group performances on each post test, comparisons of children's age,and teachers' ratings of a b i l i t y between groups, follows. 25 /Analysis o f Data, P a r t One: E v a l u a t i o n o f Hypothesis One, Two, and Three The f i r s t hypothesis p r e d i c t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n who enacted a b r i e f s t o r y would demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e c a l l o f n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l than would those c h i l d r e n s i t t i n g and l i s t e n i n g t o i t a t PT-1. The r e c a l l o f n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l was measured by enumerating the number o f i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s — c a t e g o r i z e d according t o Fajmelhart's (as c i t e d i n S t e i n & Glenn, 1975) schema f o r s t o r i e s — w h i c h were present on r e c a l l performances. . For the performance on the category measure (at PT-1), the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s are presented i n Table I I I . TABLE I I I Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s on Category Measure by C h i l d r e n i n AE and PE Groups a t PT-1 Group Mean SD AE 5.125 1.995 PE 2.75 1.653 T o t a l 3.938 2.169 i—-26' As can be seen from Table III, the AE group had a higher rate of r e c a l l than the PE group on the category measure at PT-1. The analysis of variance indicated this to be a significant difference (F (1,30) = 13.437, p = .0009). Pooled variance estimate also indicated there was a significant difference between the means for the category measure at PT-1 (t (30) = 3.666, p = .001). Furthermore, homogenity of variance was checked using Bartlett's procedure. This post-hoc test indicated no differences of variance between the groups (Bartlett-box F = .512, p = .475) at PT-1. (Post-hoc tests were used to satisfy any argument that variance differences could be the contributing factor to significant differences of analysis of variance between the means for a l l tests on measures in this study). Hypothesis Two predicted that children who enacted a brief story would demonstrate significantly more r e c a l l of e x p l i c i t information i n the story than would those children s i t t i n g and listening to i t at PT-1. The mean number of responses and standard deviations for each group, at PT-1, on the e x p l i c i t information measure can be seen i n Table TV. TABLE IV Means and Standard Deviations on E x p l i c i t Information Measure by Children i n AE and PE Groups at PT-1 Group Mean SD AE 9.75 3.624 PE 4.875 3.052 Total 7.313 4.123 27 Table TV shows that the AE group had more r e c a l l of e x p l i c i t i n -formation than the PE group. Analysis of variance of the means indicated that this was a significant difference (F (1,30) = 16.938, p = .0003) at PT-1. Pooled variance estimate also indicated significant differences between the means (t (30) - 4.116, p = .000). Hcmyjenity of variance was also significant (Bartlett-box F = .426, p = .514) for no differences of variance between the groups on this measure at PT-1. The third hypothesis predicted that at PT-1, children who enacted a brief story would demonstrate significantly more r e c a l l of implicit information i n the story than would those children s i t t i n g and listening to i t . Implicit information recalled at PT-1 i s summarized i n Table V. As can be seen, the AE group had more r e c a l l of implicit information than the PE group. TABLE V Means and Standard Deviations on Implicit Information Measure by Children i n AE and PE Groups at PT-1 Group Mean SD AE 1.125 .957 PE .500 .516 Total .813 .821 28 This difference was significant at PT-1 (F (1,30) = 5.282, p = .029). The pooled variance estimate indicated that the differences between both means are significantly different (t (30) = 2.298, p_ = .029). Homogenity of variance (Bartlett-box F = 5.222, p = .022) was not significant indicating differences of variances between the groups. Analysis of Data, Part Two: Evaluation of Hypothesis Four, Five, and Six The results of the oneway analysis of variance at PT-2 were similar to those results at PT-1. The fourth hypothesis predicted that at PT-2, children who enacted a brief story would demonstrate significantly more r e c a l l of narrative material than would those children s i t t i n g and listening to i t (one week la t e r ) . The mean number of responses and standard deviations for each group on the category measure at PT-2 i s summarized i n Table VT. TABLE VT Means and Standard Deviations on Category Measure by Children i n AE and PE Groups at PT-2 Group Mean SD AE 3.563 2.128 PE 1.375 1.455 Total 2.469 2.11 29 As can be seen from Table VI, the AE group had a higher rate of re c a l l on the category measure than the PE group. The differences of these r e c a l l rates were significant at PT-2 (F (1,30) = 11.520, p = .002). Pooled variance estimate also indicated significant differences between the means (t (30) = 3.394, p = .002). Homogenity of variance on the category measure between the groups was also significant, indicating that the variances were the same. (Bartlett-box F = 2.052, p = .152) at PT-2. Hypothesis number five predicted that at PT-2, children who enacted a brief story would demonstrate significantly more r e c a l l of e x p l i c i t information than would those children who merely listened to i t . There was more r e c a l l of e x p l i c i t information by the AE group than the PE group on the e x p l i c i t information measure (see Table VII). This was a significant difference between the group means (F (1,30) = 11.95, p =^0017). TABLE VII Means and Standard Deviations on E x p l i c i t Information Measure by Children i n AE and PE Groups at PT-2 Group Mean SD AE 6.5 .3.983 PE 2.375 2.63 Total 4.438 3.926 30 The pooled variance estimate was also significant indicating no difference between the means (t (30) = 3.457, p = .002) on the e x p l i c i t i measure. Homogenity of variance also indicated there was no difference i n variance between the groups on the e x p l i c i t measure at PT-2 (Bartlett-box F = 2.434, p = .119). The l a s t hypothesis, number 6, predicted that children who enacted a brief story would demonstrate significantly more re c a l l of implicit r information than would those children who merely listened to i t (at PT-2). Implicit information recalled at PT-2^is outlined i n Table VTII. TABLE VTII Means and Standard Deviations of Implicit Information Measure by Children i n AE and PE Groups at PT-2 Group Mean SD AE .563 .629 PE .125 .342 Total .344 .545 As can be seen in Table VIII, the AE group had a superior performance in recalling implicit information as opposed to the PE group. The oneway analysis of variance indicated that this difference was significant at PT-2 (F (1,30) = 5.976, p = .021). The pooled variance estimate was also significant at PT-2 (t (30) = 2.445, p = 0.21). Homogenity of variance indicated that there was a difference i n group variance at PT-2 (Bartlett-box F = 5.118, p = .024). Analysis of the Data, Part Three: Evaluation of Answers, PT-2, Part Two The oneway analysis of variance on the responses to the questions (see Appendix E) asked at the end of PT-2 (this was PT-2, part two), indicated that the AE group recalled significantly more information about the story than did the PE group. This can be seen in Table IX. TABLE IX Means and Standard Deviations of Answers by Children i n AE and PE Groups at PT-2, Part Two Group Mean SD F (df) = P = AE 15.813 4.215 6.042 (1,30) .020 PE 11.375 5.867 Total 13.594 5.506 Further, pooled variance estimate resulted i n no difference between the means t (30) = 2.248, p = .020. Homogenity of variance also i n d i -32 cated there was no d i f f e r e n c e o f v a r i a n c e between groups on the c h i l d r e n ' s answers a t PT-2, P a r t Two ( B a r t l e t t - b o x F - 1.556, p - .212) . A n a l y s i s o f the Data, P a r t Four: Between Group Comparisons o f Age and Teachers' Ratings o f A b i l i t y Each c h i l d was r a t e d by h i s teacher on a t h r e e p o i n t s c a l e w i t h regard t o each o f the f o l l o w i n g : A b i l i t y , performance, i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s , and o v e r a l l i n t e l l i g e n c e . The r a t i n g s f o r each c h i l d on each o f the f o r e g o i n g were combined t o form a composite a b i l i t y r a t i n g . These composite scores f o r each group were then compared. A n a l y s i s of the r a t i n g s by teachers (as shown i n Table X) y i e l d e d no s i g n i f i c a n t between group d i f f e r e n c e s (F (1,30) = .483, p = .492) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t e d between groups on the combined measure o f r a t i n g s by the teachers. TABLE X Ratings o f A b i l i t y : Data by Group Group Mean SD AE 2.386 .394 PE 2.398 .365 T o t a l "2739 .374 Likewise, a oneway analysis of variance between groups on comparisons of children's age also indicated no significant between group differences (F (1,30) = .007, p = .932); can be seen i n Table XI. TABLE XI Age and Sex of Children: Data by Group Group Mean Age SD (Age) Boys Gir l s AE 5.51 .235 9 7 PE 5.45 .335 7 9 Total 5.48 .286 16 16 These data, together, suggest then, that group differences with regard to age and a b i l i t y , as quantified, are not spurious sources of between group differences on the dependent measures. 34 CHAPTER VT DISCUSSION The present study exarnined the e f fec ts of two types of encounters wi th narrat ive mater ia l on young ch i ld ren ' s r e c a l l performances. The e f fec ts were examined by comparing the amount o f free r e c a l l at two times a f t e r the encounters and by the responses to questions answered at the end of the second time per iod (PT-2, part two). Data from a l l measures at both post tes ts ind icate that ch i ldren who enacted a b r i e f story w i th puppets (AE group) r eca l l ed more narrat ive mate r i a l , e x p l i c i t information, and i m p l i c i t information from the b r i e f s tory than d id those ch i ldren who merely l i s tened to i t (PE group). Furthermore, the resu l t s of a check fo r any spurious sources of per -formance di f ferences enhanced confidence i n the conclusion that the performance di f ferences can be a t t r ibuted to di f ferences i n experimental treatment s ince no s i gn i f i c an t between group di f ferences were found i n teacher rat ings of a b i l i t y or age. Accordingly, s ince i t was concluded that the groups were from the same age and a b i l i t y populat ion, and a l l d i f ferences i n performances were as pred ic ted, a l l hypotheses were accepted. Interpretat ion and Implications The resu l t s of the present study suggest motoric organizat ion of narrat ive content enhances r e c a l l (of that narrat ive mater ia l ) . However, one may ask whether the resu l t s are equivocal due to the fac t that on one measure (the i m p l i c i t measure) there were s i g n i f i c a n t di f ferences between group variances at both post t e s t s . Closer exami-nat ion of the variance data, however, allows one to put t h i s doubt a s i d e . For a s m a l l number o f c h i l d r e n i n the PE group (9 i n PT-1 and 2 i n PT-2) r e c a l l e d the i m p l i c i t i n f o r m a t i o n . The r e s t o f the c h i l d r e n i n the PE group d i d not r e c a l l any i m p l i c i t i n f o r m a t i o n which r e s u l t e d i n many scores as zero (7 i n PT-1 and 14 i n PT-2). By c o n t r a s t , the c h i l d r e n i n the AE group more c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c a l l e d i n f o r m a t i o n on t h i s measure (11 i n PT-1 and 8 i n PT-2). A c c o r d i n g l y , the AE group had fewer scores as zero (5 i n PT-1 and 8 i n PT-2). F u r t h e r , s i n c e the c h i l d r e n ' s ages and r a t i n g s o f a b i l i t y d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y between groups, a d i f f e r e n c e of a younger age and/or a lower a b i l i t y r a t i n g c o u l d not be regarded a c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the low scores (amount • o f zeros as scores) on t h i s measure. Therefore, the amount o f low scores (zeros) appears t o be the reason f o r the v a r i a n c e d i f f e r e n c e s . Such was the reason f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s o f r e s e t t i n g the confidence i n t e r v a l s ( i . e . r e s e t t i n g the p r o b a b i l i t y t o .02 o r .001) and/or t r a n s p o s i n g the scores t o decrease the amount o f v a r i a n c e between groups, d i d not appear t o be warranted. A second q u e s t i o n about the r e s u l t s o f t h i s study should a l s o be d i s c u s s e d . T h i s q u e s t i o n concerns the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t r e h e a r s a l e f f e c t s may confound the e f f e c t s o f the p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e (motor organ-i z a t i o n ) i n t h i s . Since the c h i l d r e n o f the e n a c t i v e group were n e c e s s a r i l y r e h e a r s i n g the substance o f the s t o r y as they acted i t out, and c h i l d r e n i n the a l t e r n a t i v e c o n d i t i o n d i d not have t o rehearse the m a t e r i a l , one must co n s i d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t performance d i f f e r e n c e s on the p ost t e s t measures are a t t r i b u t a b l e t o p o s s i b l e advantages gained by the AE c h i l d r e n from r e h e a r s a l (Bandura & J e f f e r y , 1973). U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the design o f t h i s study does not enable one t o p a r t i a l out such e f f e c t s as might be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o r e h e a r s a l . Future research i n this area could use a design which enables one to avoid confounding effects of rehearsal with those that may be associated with enactive organization of the material to be recalled. Such a design may entail the use of a group that i s induced to rehearse the material without enacting i t subsequent to hearing i t . Furthermore, control for the po s s i b i l i t y of a Hawthorne effect (regarding the use of puppets), may also be achieved through a design which includes a group which watches the puppets enacting the story as i s being read. The performance of the above groups could then be compared to such groups as were in this study. Such designs should be contrived and used i n a study which would c l a r i f y the theoretical significance of the present findings. While a more complete theoretical explanation for the present results w i l l depend upon future research which c l a r i f i e s the extent to which a rehearsal effect i s implicated i n r e c a l l gains exhibited by children who act out stories, teachers may take note that this study has shown that children who do organize information through their actions appear to re c a l l more of such information than do those who merely l i s t e n to i t . Accordingly, where pedagogical techniques require the r e c a l l of "information, superior gains may be obtained i f the teacher uses an enactive experience approach with young children rather than merely t e l l i n g the c h i l d and/or reading the information; and these gains may also be made with no loss in instruction time. 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY TAnastasiow N. Oral language: expression of thought. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1971. (ERIC Doc^ ument Reproduction Service No. ED 054 394) Bandura, A., & Jeffery, R.W. Role of symbolic coding and rehearsal processes i n observational learning. Journal  of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 122-130. Bijou, S.W. Child development: The basic stage of early childhood. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1976. Bower, G.H. Mental imagery and associative learning. In L. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition i n learning and memory. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972. Brown, A.L. Recognition, reconstruction, and r e c a l l of narrative sequences by preoperational children. Child Development, 1975, 46, 156-166. Brown, A.L., & Smiley, S.S. Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A prblbem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 1977, 48 (1), 1-8. Bruiniks, R.H., & Clark, C. Auditory and visual learning i n f i r s t - , third- and fifth-grade children. Research Report #14. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 080 181)' Bruner, J.S. The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 1-15. Bruner, J.S. '. Studies i n cognitive growth. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966. Bruner, J.S. Beyond the information given. J.M. Anglin (Ed.), New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1973. Cannizzaro, L., Cecchini, M., & Musatti, T. (Operation and code i n the operational development of the child: The operational proportion.) Archivio de Psicologia Neurologia & Psichiatria, 1975, 36 (3), 271-312. (Psychological Abstracts, 1975, 58, No. 9962.) C h i , M.T. Short term memory l i m i t a t i o n s i n c h i l d r e n : C a p a c i t y or p r o c e s s i n g d e f i c i t s ? Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 1976, 4_ (5), 559-572. C h r i s t i e , D.J. The e f f e c t s o f context i n s t r u c t i o n s , and age d i f f e r e n c e s on the r e t e n t i o n o f o r a l l y presented prose. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio U n i v e r s i t y , 1975). D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1975, 36, 5297B-5298B. Cromer, R.F. C h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s e r i a t e d d i s p l a y s : Evidence a g a i n s t a memory r e o r g a n i z a t i o n hypothesis. The B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 1977, 613 (2), 165-175. Danner, F.W., & T a y l o r , A.M. I n t e g r a t e d p i c t u r e s and r e l a t i o n a l imagery t r a i n i n g i n c h i l d r e n ' s l e a r n i n g . J o u r n a l o f  Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 1973, 16 (1), 47-54. Dauzat, J . The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f f o u r methods o f t e a c h i n g word  r e c o g n i t i o n s k i l l s t o c h i l d r e n from disadvantaged and hdn- disadVantaged f a m i l i e s . Monroe, L o u i s i a n a : Northeast L o u i s i a n a S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 055 745) Debes, J.L., I I I . Mind, language and l i t e r a c y . Rochester, New York: U n i v e r s i t y o f Rochester, 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 108 659) Drew, J.A., & Brooks, P.H. I n f l u e n c e o f c o n t e x t u a l o r g a n i z i n g m a t e r i a l on c h i l d r e n ' s l i s t e n i n g comprehension. J o u r n a l  o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1976, 68 (6), 711-716. Durr, W.K., Lee Pere, J.M., & A l s i n , M.L. (Eds.) Rockets. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1976, p. 72. Edmonds, M.H. New d i r e c t i o n s i n t h e o r i e s o f language a c q u i s i t i o n . Harvard E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1976, 46 (2), 175. E h r i , L.C. Word l e a r n i n g i n beginning readers and prereaders: E f f e c t s o f form c l a s s and d e f i n i n g c o n t e x t s . J o u r n a l o f  E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1976, 68 (6), 832-842. E l k i n d , D. E a r l y c h i l d h o o d education. A P i a g e t i a n p e r s p e c t i v e . N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l ^ 1971, 51 (1), 48-55. 39 F l a v e l l , J.H. The Developmental Psychology o f Jean P i a g e t . Van Nostrand: P r i n c e t o n , N.J., 1963. F l a v e l l , J.H. Developmental s t u d i e s o f mediated memory. I n H.W. Reese & L.P. L i p s i t t (Eds.), Advances i n c h i l d development and behavior ( V o l . 5) New York: Academic P r e s s , 1970. F l a v e l l , J.H. F i r s t d i s c u s s a n t ' s comments: What i s memory development the development o f ? Human Development, 1971, 14, 272-278. Goodson, B.D., & G r e e n f i e l d , P.M. The search f o r s t r u c t u r a l p r i n c i p l e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s m a n i p u l a t i v e p l a y : A p a r a l l e l w i t h l i n g u i s t i c development. C h i l d Development, 1975, 46^, 734-746. Hoving, K.L., Konick, D.S., & Wallace, J . Memory storage and r e t r i e v a l w i t h i n and across m o d a l i t i e s i n c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l  o f Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 1975, 19 (3), 440-447. Inhelder, B., S i n c l a i r , H., & Bovet, M. Learning and the development  of c o g n i t i o n . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974. J a b l o n s k i , E.M. Free r e c a l l i n c h i l d r e n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1974, 81 ( 9 ) , 522-539. Jones, B. F a c i l i t a t i o n o f v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n through v o l u n t a r y movement i n elementary sc h o o l c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l Of Experimental  C h i l d Psychology, 1972, 14 (3), 408-415. K a i l , R.V. J r . C h i l d r e n ' s encoding o f taxonomic c l a s s e s and subclasses. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12 (5) , 487-488. Kamii, C. One i n t e l l i g e n c e i n d i v i d u a l . Young C h i l d r e n , 1975, 30_ (4) , 228-238. Kre u t z e r , M.A., Leonard, C., & F l a v e l l , J.H. An i n t e r v i e w study o f c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about memory. S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Development Monographs, 1975, 40_ ( 1 ) , 1-58. Lange, G., & Jackson, P. Pers o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i n c h i l d r e n ' s f r e e r e c a l l . C h i l d development,-1974, 45 ( 1 ) , 1060-1067. Lehamn, E.B. Selective strategies i n children's attention to task-relevant information. Child Development, 1972, 43 (1), 197-209. Levin, J.R. Inducing comprehension i n poor readers: A test of a recent model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65 19-24. Levin, J.R., & Divine-Hawkins, P. Visual imagery as a prose learning process. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1974, £, 23-30. Levin, J.R., Divine-Hawkins, P., & Kerst, S.M. Strategies i n reading  comprehension: II. Individual differences i n learning from  pictures and words. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 082 143) Levin, J.R. Ghatala, E.S., DeRose, T.M., Wilder, L., & Norton, R.W. A further comparison of imagery and vocalization strategies i n children's discrirturiation learning. Journal of Educational  Psychology, 1975, 67 (1), 141-145. Levin, J.R., Lesgold, A.M., Shimron, J., & Guttman, J. Strategies  i n reading comprehension 4: Pictures and young children's  learning from oral prose. Technical report No. 328. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 112 584) Levin, J.R., McCabe, A.E., & Bender, B.G. A note on imagery-inducing motor activity i n young children. Child Development, 1975, 46, 236-266. Locke, J.L. Children's language coding i n short term memory. Language and Speech, 1973, 16_ (3) , 271-278. Millar, S. Effects of interpolated tasks on latency and accuracy of intramodal and cross-modal recognition by children. Journal  of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 96 (1), 170-175. Olson, D.R. Oral and written language and the cognitive processes of children. Journal of Communication, 1977, 27 (3), 10-26. Paris, S.G., & Lindauer, B.K. The role of inference i n children's comprehension and memory for sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 1976, 8 (2), 217-227. r 41 Paris, S.G., & Upton, L.R. Children's memory for inferential relationships i n prose. Child Development, 1976, £7 (3), 660-668. Penman, K.A., Christopher, J.P., & Wood, G.S. Using gross motor activity to improve language arts concepts by third grade students. Research Quarterly, 1977, 48 (1), 134-137. Piaget, J. Play, dreams, and imitation i n childhood. New York: Norton, 1962. Piaget, J. Six psychological studies. New York: Random House, 1967. Piaget, J. The child's conception of time. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1969. Piaget, J. The language and thought of the child. New York: New American Library, 1974. Piaget, J. The grasp of consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. The psychology of the child. New York, Basic Books, 1969. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. Mental imagery i n the child. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. Memory and intelligence. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Reese, H.W. Imagery i n paired-associate learning i n children. Journal  of Experimental Child Psychology, 1965, 2, 290-296. Rohwer, W.D. Jr. Imagery and contextual meaning. Psychological  Bulletin, 1970, 73, 404-414. Rosenberg, S., Jarvella, & Cross P. Semantic integration, age and the r e c a l l of sentences. Child Development, 1971, 42 (6), 1959-1966. 42 Rosner, S.R. The effects of rehearsal and chunking instructions on children's m u l t i t r i a l free r e c a l l . Journal of Experimental  Child Psychology, 1971, 11, 93-105. Rubin, L., & Pollack, C. Auditory perception i n kindergarten children. Journal of Special Education, 1969, .3 (2), 155-161. Saltz, E., Dunin-Markiewioz, A., & Rourke, D. The development of natural concepts: II. Developmental changes i n attribute structures. Child Development, 1975, 46 (4), 913-921. Silvern, S.B., & Yawkey, T.D. Young children's encoding of images based on motor and verbal modes of mediation. Psychology i n  the Schools, 1977, 14 (1), 112-115. Slobin, D. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. Ferguson and D.I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child  language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973. Stacey, J.T., & Ross, B.M. Scheme and schema i n children's memory of their own drawings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 37-41. Stein, N., & Glenn, C. A developmental study of children's r e c a l l of  story material. Paper presented at the Society for Research i n Child Development, Denver, Colorado. St. Louis, Missouri: Washington University, 1975. Swalm, J.E. Is listening really more effective for learning i n the early grades? Elementary English, 1974, 51 (8), 1110-1113. Tenney, Y.H. The child's conception of organization and r e c a l l . Journal  df Experimental Child Psychology, 1975, 19, '100-114. Therrien, S. Children's play: Translating research into practice. Early Childhood Education, 1977, 10 (2), 10-19. Trabasso, T., & Riley, C.A. An information processing analysis of transitive inferences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 091 043) Tulving, E. When i s r e c a l l higher than recognition? PsychOhomic  Science, 1968, 10, 53-54. 43 Underwood, B.J., & Freund, J.S. Two tests of a theory of verbal-discrimination learning. Canada Journal of Psychology, 1968, 22, 96-104. VanDam, G., Peeck, J., Brinkerink, M., & Gorter, U. The isolation effect i n free r e c a l l and recognition. /American Journal of  Psychology, 1974, 87 (3), 497-504. Webster, B.R., & Cox, S.M. The value of color i n educational television. B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Technology, 1974, 5_ (11), 44-61. Wilder, L. Spoken rehearsal and verbal discrimination learning. Speech Monograph, 1971, 38, 113-120. Wilder, L., & Levin, J. A developmental study of pronouncing response in the discrimination learning of words and pictures. Journal  of Child Psychology, 1973, 15, 278-286. Williams, J.P., Williams, D.V., & Blumberg, E.L. Visual and aural learning i n urban children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 64 (3), 353-359. Yussen, S.R., Gange, E., Garriulo, R., & Kunen, S. The distinction  between perceiving and memorizing i n elementary school children. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1974. (ERIC Docaiement Reproduction Service No. ED 098 538) 7APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF TERMS In t h i s study, the f o l l o w i n g terms were used. A c t i v e Experience: E x p l i c i t Information: I m p l i c i t Information: N a r r a t i v e M a t e r i a l : P a s s i v e Experience: Post Test-1: Post Test-2: A c h i l d l i s t e n s t o a b r i e f s t o r y and simultaneously makes a hand puppet a c t out the sequence o f the s t o r y on a background. Information i n a b r i e f s t o r y t h a t i s s a i d and s t a t e d , f o r example, i n "The L i t t l e Brown Rabbit...,' l i t t l e , brown and r a b b i t are e x p l i c i t . I nformation t h a t i s not s a i d i n a b r i e f s t o r y but which the s t o r y may imply, f o r example, i n 'He looked f o r something t o eat,' may imply 'he was hungry.' The o v e r a l l content o f the b r i e f s t o r y presented. T h i s content was then c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o s i x p a r t s according t o Rumelhart's 'Schema' ( S t e i n & Glenn, 1976). For the c a t e -g o r i e s o f the s t o r y used i n t h i s study see Appendix F. A c h i l d s i t s and l i s t e n s t o a b r i e f s t o r y . T h i s does not mean he has t o l i s t e n however. The means o f a s k i n g a c h i l d t o t e l l back a s t o r y . (Free r e c a l l ) I n t h i s study P o s t - t e s t I was t h i r t y seconds delayed a f t e r h e a r i n g a b r i e f s t o r y i n an a c t i v e o r p a s s i v e experience s i t u a t i o n . (Immediate r e c a l l was not used because of the time needed t o put a l l r e f e r e n t s out o f s i g h t i n the a c t i v e experience s i t u a t i o n ) . A s . i n Post Test-1 except the c h i l d r e n were reminded o f 'a s t o r y ' on the tape r e c o r d e r and then asked t o t e l l i t t o the experimenter. Post Test-2 c o n s i s t e d o f two p a r t s . These p a r t s were: (1) Free r e c a l l and (2) Answering of questions (given i n that order). Post Test-2 was given seven days after hearing the brief story. And 'children'; 'child'; and 'younger children', are terms used i n this study to denote children of the ages Four to Eight, unless otherwise specified. APPENDIX B "BRIEF STORY IN ORIGINAL FOEM A l i t t l e brown rabbit hopped into a farmer's garden. I t looked a l l around for something to eat. The rabbit ran over to a patch of lettuce. As i t nibbled on some lettuce, i t s ears perked up. A dog was barking i n the distance, and the barking noise was coming closer and closer. The rabbit hopped out of the farmer's garden and into a nearby hole. APPENDIX C i REVISED VERSIONS OF ORIGINAL BRIEF STORY RABBIT STORY A l i t t l e brown rabbit hopped into a farmer's garden. I t looked a l l around for something to eat. The rabbit ran over to a patch of lettuce. As i t nibbled on some lettuce, i t s ears stood up. A dog was barking i n the distance, and the barking noise was coming closer and closer. The rabbit hopped out of the farmer's garden and into a nearby hole. DEER STORY A l i t t l e brown deer jumped into a farmer's garden. I t looked a l l around for something to eat. The deer ran over to a patch of lettuce. As i t nibbled on some lettuce, i t s ears stood up. A dog was barking i n the distance, and the barking noise was coming closer and closer. The deer jumped out of the farmer's garden and into a nearby forest. 48 /APPENDIX D /ACTIVE EXPERIENCE STORY CONDITION—TRAINING SENTENCES When the rabbit puppet was used i n the p r e - t r i a l , the following two statements were used: (1) ' "A rabbit was walking through some woods when he heard his mother c a l l i n g him to come home as fast as he could." (2) "A rabbit was going down the forest t r a i l when The following alternative sentences were used with the deer puppet: he saw some friends, stopped to say hello, and then went on again. II (1) II 'A deer was walking through some woods when he heard his mother cal l i n g him to come home as fast as he could. II (2) II 'A deer was going down a forest t r a i l when he saw some friends, stopped to say hello, and then went on again. II 49 APPENDIX E QUESTIONS OF PART TWO Possible Score (1) What animal was the story about? 1 (2) What animals were i n the story? 2 (3) What did the rabbit (deer) do f i r s t ? 3 (4) Where did the rabbit (deer) go? 2 (5) When the rabbit (deer) got into the garden, what did he do? 4 (6) What did the rabbit (deer) look for i n the story? 2 (7) Why was the rabbit (deer) looking for something to eat? 1 (8) What did the rabbit (deer) find? 2 (9) When the rabbit (deer) was eating the lettuce, why did his ears stand up? 2 (10) What did the rabbit (deer) hear as i t was eating the lettuce? r 1 (11) What was the dog doing? 2 (12) Was the dog trying to get the rabbit (deer) ? 1 (13) What did the rabbit (deer) do then? 3 (14) Where did the rabbit (deer) go? 3 (15) Why did the rabbit hop into a nearby hole? (Why did the deer jump into a nearby forest?) 1 (16) How do you think the rabbit (deer) felt? 1 (17) Why do .you think the rabbit (deer) f e l t this way? 1 APPENDIX F STORY CATEGORIZED IN KUMELHART'S 'SCHEMA' (1) Setting: (2) Activity: (3) Internal response (goal) (4) Activity: (5) Internal response (goal) (6) Activity: (7) Event: (8) Event: (9) Internal response (cognitive): (10) Event: (11) Internal response (cognitive): (12) Activity: (13) Internal response (cognitive): (14) Consequence: A l i t t l e brown rabbit hopped into a farmer's garden. It looked a l l around for something to eat. The rabbit ran over to a patch of lettuce. As i t nibbled on some lettuce i t s ears stood up. A dog was barking i n the distance, and the barking noise was coming closer and closer. The rabbit hopped out of the farmer's garden and into a nearby hole. /APPENDIX G EXPLICIT ITEMS IN STORY 1. L i t t l e 2. Brown 3. Rabbit (Deer) 4. Hopped (Jumped) into 5. Farmer's 6. Garden 7. Looked 8. Around 9. Eat 10. Ran 11. Patch 12. Lettuce 13. Nibbled 14. Ears 15. Stood up 16. Dog 17. Barking 18. Distance 19. Closer and closer 20. Hopped (Jumped) out 21. Nearby-22. Hole (Forest) 52 APPENDIX H IMPLICIT ITEMS IN STORY 1. Rabbit (Deer) hungry 2. Looking for food 3. Saw the lettuce 4. Found the lettuce 5. Did not eat much lettuce 6. Heard a noise 7. Dog barking at rabbit (deer) 8. Dog after rabbit (deer) 9. Rabbit (Deer) scared or frightened 10. Farmer's garden not safe 11. Hole is safe 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094468/manifest

Comment

Related Items