Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects on prose recall of learner’s prior knowledge and name versus attribute organization Richter, Joan Harriet Hedge 1982

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 R53.pdf [ 1.88MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095078.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095078-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095078-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095078-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095078-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095078-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095078-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095078-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095078.ris

Full Text

EFFECTS ON PROSE RECALL OF LEARNER'S PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND NAME VERSUS ATTRIBUTE ORGANIZATION by JOAN HARRIET HEDGE RICHTER B . A . , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y ) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MAY 1982 (c) Joan H a r r i e t Hedge R i c h t e r , 1982 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study.- I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ^JJACA^V^AX^ P<,£^rA ir{jbt The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 requirements for an advanced degree at the University DE-6 (3/81) i i ABSTRACT T h i s s tudy examined the e f f e c t s on p r o s e r e c a l l of two v a r i a b l e s . The f i r s t v a r i a b l e was the r e a d e r ' s p r i o r knowledge of the d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l i d e s c r i b e d i n the text m a t e r i a l s . The v a r i a b l e was d e f i n e d i n terms of f a m i l i a r i t y and unfami 1 i a r i t y . D e s c r i p t i o n s of chess p i e c e s were u n f a m i l i a r because s u b j e c t s were not knowledgeable about the game of c h e s s ; d e s c r i p t i o n s of f i s h were f a m i l i a r because s u b j e c t s were a d u l t s and assumed to be c o g n i z a n t of d i m e n s i o n s used to d e s c r i b e l i v i n g organisms such as h a b i t a t , d i e t , e t c . . The second v a r i a b l e was the type of o r g a n i z a t i o n of the text m a t e r i a l s , name o r g a n i z a t i o n or a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Name o r g a n i z a t i o n l i s t e d a l l the a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s f o r each i n s t a n c e i n a s e p a r a t e p a r a g r a p h . A t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n l i s t e d a l l a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s f o r each a t t r i b u t e i n a s e p a r a t e p a r a g r a p h . There were f i v e a t t r i b u t e s and s i x i n s t a n c e s f o r both the chess and the f i s h d e c r i p t i o n s . I t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s would be r e c a l l e d b e t t e r under a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n than under name o r g a n i z a t i o n because the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n space was presumably e s t a b l i s h e d f o r these m a t e r i a l s and c o u l d be e a s i l y a c c e s s e d . C o n v e r s e l y , u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s would be r e c a l l e d b e t t e r under name o r g a n i z a t i o n than under a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n because presumably the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space was not e s t a b l i s h e d ; i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d that " b u n d l e s " of a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a name would l e a d to b e t t e r r e c a l l under these c o n d i t i o n s . The r e s u l t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between p r i o r knowledge and t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n , but i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n : i i i A t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d i n g to b e t t e r r e c a l l than name o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s and name o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d i n g to b e t t e r r e c a l l than a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . I t was suggested t h a t the observed i n t e r a c t i o n was due to the two s u b - p r o c e s s e s i n the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n space model . The f i r s t s u b -p r o c e s s e s t a b l i s h e s the d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e ; t h i s i s f a c i l i t a t e d by a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d t e x t . The second s u b - p r o c e s s embeds i n s t a n c e s i n the d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e ; t h i s i s f a c i l i t a t e d by name o r g a n i z e d t e x t . . T h i s would account f o r the o v e r a l l s u p e r i o r i t y of f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s over u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . However, the number of a t t r i b u t e s i n v o l v e d may a l s o be a v a r i a b l e which i n t e r a c t s w i t h p r i o r knowledge and t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n . i v T a b l e of C o n t e n t s Chapter Page I Research Problems 1 A . Statement of the Problem 1 B. Source of the Problem 1 C . R a t i o n a l e 6 D . T h e o r e t i c a l Hypotheses 10 II Method 14 A . D e s i g n 14 B. S u b j e c t s 15 C . M a t e r i a l s 15 D. Procedure 18 E . S c o r i n g 19 F . P r e d i c t i o n s 20 III R e s u l t s 22 A . Free R e c a l l 22 B. Input o r d e r / O u t p u t order Correspondence 24 C . C l u s t e r i n g I n d i c e s 25 IV D i s c u s s i o n 27 R e f e r e n c e s 34 Appendix 37 L i s t of T a b l e s T a b l e Page I M a t r i x R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of D i m e n s i o n a l S t r u c t u r e of S t i m u l i 16 v i L i s t of F i g u r e s F i g u r e Page "" 1 I n t e r a c t i o n between o r d e r and f a m i l i a r i t y i n r e c a l l s cores , 23 2 I n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y i n r e c a l l s c o r e s 23 3 I n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y i n c l u s t e r i n g i n d i c e s 25 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I thank rny committee c h a i r m a n , D r . Seong-Soo L e e , f o r the support and guidance r e c e i v e d d u r i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h . I a l s o thank the members of my committee , D r . Nancy S u z u k i , and D r . Ray C o r t e e n f o r t h e i r h e l p f u l s u g g e s t i o n s and comments. F i n a l l y , I thank my husband, P a u l and my s o n , D a n i e l f o r t h e i r encouragement. 1 Chapter I A . Statement of the Problem S t u d e n t s have v a r y i n g degrees of knowledge about the m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d i n t e x t b o o k s and i n l e c t u r e s . The q u e s t i o n i s , can d i f f e r e n t types of s t r u c t u r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of the m a t e r i a l s make a d i f f e r e n c e , depending on the l e v e l of knowledge s / h e b r i n g s to the l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n ? More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i f they know very l i t t l e , does one type of o r g a n i z a t i o n maximize the r e t e n t i o n of knowledge ; b u t , i f the s t u d e n t ' s l e v e l of knowledge i s more e x t e n s i v e , w i l l another type of o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d to b e t t e r r e t e n t i o n of the m a t e r i a l ? The q u e s t i o n i s not a n o v e l q u e s t i o n , but the types of o r g a n i z a t i o n of prose m a t e r i a l s , name or a t t r i b u t e , have i n t r i g u e d many r e s e a r c h e r s . The purpose of the p r e s e n t s tudy i s to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the o r g a n i z a t i o n type and l e a r n e r ' s p r i o r knowledge of l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s . B. Source of the Problem The problem a r i s e s out of two s e p a r a t e areas of r e s e a r c h . The f i r s t area i s r e s e a r c h on the o r g a n i z a t i o n of prose m a t e r i a l s (Frase 1969, 1973; Friedman and G r e i t z e r , 1972) and the second area i s r e s e a r c h on the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of s t i m u l i (Garner 1974, 1976; Lockhead 1970, 2 1972) . Research on the o r g a n i z a t i o n of prose m a t e r i a l s ; Research on the o r g a n i z a t i o n of prose m a t e r i a l s has l o o k e d at t h r e e types of o r g a n i z a t i o n ; random or no o r g a n i z a t i o n , name o r g a n i z a t i o n and a t t r i b u t e or d i m e n s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Name o r g a n i z e d passages l i s t a l l the v a l u e s of each a t t r i b u t e or dimension of a concept w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t a n c e , one i n s t a n c e at a t i m e , w i t h a s e p a r a t e p a r a g r a p h of t e x t f o r each i n s t a n c e . A t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d passages l i s t a l l the v a l u e s f o r each i n s t a n c e of a concept one a t t r i b u t e at a t i m e , w i t h a separa te paragraph of t e x t f o r each a t t r i b u t e . F r a s e (1969) used prose d e s c r i p t i o n s of s i x chess p i e c e s v a r y i n g on e i g h t a t t r i b u t e s such as "moves" , " c a p t u r e s " , " p o i n t s " . He found no d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount r e c a l l e d between name o r g a n i z e d and a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d m a t e r i a l s a l t h o u g h both were s u p e r i o r to randomly o r g a n i z e d p a s s a g e s . He d i d f i n d more c l u s t e r i n g i n r e c a l l w i t h name o r g a n i z e d passages compared to the other two types of o r g a n i z a t i o n , but c l u s t e r i n g d i d not c o r r e l a t e w i t h the amount r e c a l l e d . Friedman and G r e i t z e r (1972) used prose d e s c r i p t i o n s of s i x f i s h v a r y i n g on three a t t r i b u t e s and found a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n to be s u p e r i o r to name o r g a n i z a t i o n . There are at l e a s t two p o s s i b l e reasons f o r the d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s found i n the two s t u d i e s . One d i f f e r e n c e i s i n the c o m p l e x i t y of the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s . Friedman and G r e i t z e r a l s o p o i n t out t h a t the e i g h t d i m e n s i o n s of F r a s e ' s s tudy might exceed the 7 ± 2 l i m i t of the o r g a n i z i n g system f o r memory so that s u b j e c t s c o u l d 3 not use the a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the passage to d e v e l o p an e f f i c i e n t r e t r i e v a l scheme. The second p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n c o n c e r n s the s u b j e c t s ' p r i o r knowledge of the s t i m u l i . In F r a s e ' s (1969) study the a d u l t s u b j e c t s d i d not p l a y chess so they were u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the m a t e r i a l s d e s c r i b e d i n the prose p a s s a g e s . In Friedman and G r e i t z e r ' s (1972) s tudy the a d u l t s u b j e c t s were not f a m i l i a r w i t h the s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s used to d e s c r i b e the f i s h , but they would be f a m i l i a r w i t h g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of organisms such as f i s h , b i r d s , a n i m a l s ; i . e . they would know t h a t organisms have a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n , t h a t they l i v e i n p a r t i c u l a r e n v i r o n m e n t s , t h a t some are e d i b l e and some are not and so o n . To d e v e l o p t h i s n o t i o n of f a m i l i a r i t y or p r i o r knowledge f u r t h e r , I w i l l d e s c r i b e the second area of r e s e a r c h which l e d to the f o r m u l a t i o n of the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n f o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y . Research on the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s t i m u l i and the f o r m a t i o n of  the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s p a c e : For Garner (1974) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a s i n g l e s t i m u l u s i s dependent upon the p e r c e p t i o n of the d i m e n s i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the t o t a l set of s t i m u l i of which the s i n g l e s t i m u l u s i s a member. I t i s through e x p e r i e n c e t h a t the organism l e a r n s to p e r c e i v e s i n g l e s t i m u l i as m e a n i n g f u l o b j e c t s "because o n l y w i t h e x p e r i e n c e can the organism know the nature and k i n d s of d i m e n s i o n s of v a r i a t i o n which are p o s s i b l e (1974, p . 1 1 ) . " I f we are p r e s e n t e d w i t h a s i n g l e s t i m u l u s , then on the b a s i s of i t s s t i m u l u s p r o p e r t i e s and our own knowledge of the wor ld we i n f e r s e t s and subsets of s t i m u l i of which i t c o u l d be a member. For example, i f we are 4 p r e s e n t e d w i t h E we would l i k e l y i n f e r that i t i s a member of the set A ' B , C Z , D ; but i f we are p r e s e n t e d w i t h E 3 we might i n f e r that i t s r e f e r e n c e set i s | ,2,3,'—I". In o t h e r words, a s i n g l e s t i m u l u s cannot be d e s c r i b e d w i t h o u t a r e f e r e n c e s e t . Lockhead (1970) proposes t h a t when p e o p l e i d e n t i f y m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l i by a t t a c h i n g a response l a b e l to them they do so by l o c a t i n g each s t i m u l u s i n a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n space and not by combining judgements of the s e p a r a t e v a l u e s of each s t i m u l u s . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n data from 2- , 3 - , and 4-d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l u s se ts suppor t the m o d e l . A c c o r d i n g to t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n , t h e r e i s no t h e o r e t i c a l l i m i t on the number of d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l i or o b j e c t s which can be d i s c r i m i n a t e d , a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s a p r a c t i c a l l i m i t on the number which can be i d e n t i f i e d due to the time r e q u i r e d to l e a r n and a t t a c h l a b e l s to each l o c u s in the space (p..1 ) . I t i s the d i s t a n c e between a d j a c e n t s t i m u l i i n the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n space which improves i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p e r f o r m a n c e . In f a c t , Monahan and Lockhead (1977) s t a t e that redundancy produces f a s t e r and more a c c u r a t e o b j e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r e c i s e l y because i t i n c r e a s e s the " p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s t a n c e between s t i m u l i ( p . 9 4 ) . " F u r t h e r m o r e , c o n t r a r y to G a r n e r ' s (1974) c l a i m that o n l y i n t e g r a l d i m e n s i o n s can be r e d u n d a n t , Monahan and Lockhead (1977) found t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n performance i s improved by redundancy of both i n t e g r a l and s e p a r a b l e d i m e n s i o n s as w e l l as w i t h d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s on one d i m e n s i o n . I n t e g r a l d imensions such, as f requency and tone are c h a r a c t e r i z e d as u n i t a r y ; s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n to each dimension i s not p o s s i b l e and the d i s t a n c e between the two s t i m u l i , X and Y which v a r y on these two dimensions i s a E u c l i d e a n d i s t a n c e = 5 (dx + dy ) . S e p a r a b l e d imensions such as b r i g h t n e s s and s i z e , on the o t her hand, are a n a l y z a b l e ; s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n to each dimension i s p o s s i b l e , and the d i s t a n c e between two s t i m u l i which vary on s e p a r a b l e d imensions i s a C i t y - b l o c k d i s t a n c e dx+dy. C o n s i d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y that the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n space f o r d i m e n s i o n a l o b j e c t s and c o n c e p t s such as f i s h and chess p i e c e s can be e s t a b l i s h e d i n the same manner as f o r geometr ic s t i m u l i which vary i n c o l o r , b r i g h t n e s s and l o c a t i o n ; the l a t t e r d i m e n s i o n s are the d i m e n s i o n s used i n L o c k h e a d ' s s t u d y . C o l o r i s one of the a t t r i b u t e s of the f i s h s t i m u l i and some of the other d i m e n s i o n s are shape and l o c a t i o n ( h a b i t a t and d e p t h ) : For chess p i e c e s , the d i m e n s i o n s i n c l u d e how they move and whether they can jump or n o t . Except f o r the p o i n t v a l u e (the number of p o i n t s each p i e c e i s w o r t h ) , a l l the d i m e n s i o n s f o r both f i s h and chess p i e c e s are c o n c r e t e d i m e n s i o n s l i k e c o l o r . The d i f f e r e n c e between the geometr ic s t i m u l i used by Lockhead and the s t i m u l i used i n t h i s s tudy i s not that g r e a t . We can re-examine the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s of the t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n s t u d i e s i n terms of m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s p a c e s . In F r a s e ' s (1969) study the a d u l t s u b j e c t s d i d not p l a y c h e s s , and the time to study the m a t e r i a l s may not have been adequate to e s t a b l i s h the d i m e n s i o n a l space and embed the s t i m u l i w i t h i n i t . In Friedman and G r e i t z e r ' s (1972) s t u d y , the d i m e n s i o n a l space of c o l o r , d e p t h , and d i e t would be f a m i l i a r to most a d u l t s so that the time spent s t u d y i n g c o u l d be used to embed the i n s t a n c e s i n the d i m e n s i o n a l space . The p o i n t i s , - i f a 6 d i m e n s i o n a l space cannot be e s t a b l i s h e d in the time a l l o c a t e d f o r the whole t a s k , then how can s u b j e c t s b e n e f i t from a d i m e n s i o n a l l y o r g a n i z e d passage? I t might be more r e a s o n a b l e to expect such s u b j e c t s to b e n e f i t from a name-organized passage i n which each i n s t a n c e or s t i m u l u s i s p r e s e n t e d as a p e r c e p t u a l package of a t t r i b u t e s . On the o ther hand, i f the d i m e n s i o n a l s t r u c t u r e f o r the s t i m u l u s set i n q u e s t i o n i s r e a d i l y e s t a b l i s h e d and a c c e s s e d , then we might expect an a t t r i b u t e -o r g a n i z e d passage to f a c i l i t a t e r e c a l l more than a name-o r g a n i z e d p a s s a g e . The e x i s t e n c e or l a c k of a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space can serve as the b a s i s f o r d e f i n i n g the concept of f a m i l i a r i t y or p r i o r knowledge. People may be f a m i l i a r w i t h the p o s s i b l e d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of the s t i m u l i b e i n g d e s c r i b e d so that a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n space i s a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d or can be e s t a b l i s h e d q u i c k l y wi thout o v e r t a x i n g the time l i m i t s set f o r the t a s k . F a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the p o s s i b l e d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of the s t i m u l u s set i s d i s t i n c t from f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the d imensions or a t t r i b u t e s t h e m s e l v e s . For example, one can be aware that the a t t r i b u t e s "moves" , and " jumps" may r e f e r to many t h i n g s i n c l u d i n g f r o g s and c h i l d r e n . But i f a person does not know how to p l a y c h e s s , then they would not be f a m i l i a r w i t h the d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of chess p i e c e s . C . R a t i o n a l e The p r i o r knowledge of m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space p l a y s a r o l e s i m i l a r to the d i s t i n c t i o n between concept f o r m a t i o n and concept 7 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n concept l e a r n i n g r e s e a r c h . In concept f o r m a t i o n , sensory e x p e r i e n c e ..with new d e f i n i n g a t t r i b u t e s of the concept* i s n e c e s s a r y , w h i l e i n c o n c e p t _ i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t a s k s the s u b j e c t l e a r n s to i d e n t i f y a r e l e v a n t set of a l r e a d y f a m i l i a r a t t r i b u t e s i n order to l a b e l concept exemplars a c c u r a t e l y . Musgrave and Cohen (1971) made a note that i n some s i t u a t i o n s i n which a t t r i b u t e s are a b s t r a c t , prose c o u l d be used to "communicate raw or p r i m i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about the nature of a t t r i b u t e s " w i t h which the reader i s not f a m i l i a r and they g i v e , as an example, a tex t i n i n t r o d u c t o r y p h y s i c s ( p . 100). F r a s e (1969) gave h a l f of h i s s u b j e c t s i n each group an e x t r a page of i n f o r m a t i o n i n which the l i s t of a t t r i b u t e s was g i v e n . T h i s e x t r a a t t r i b u t e s t r u c t u r e of the t e x t was not a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t a l though, i t d i d i n t e r a c t w i t h t r i a l s so that the informed group r e c a l l e d more on the second and t h i r d t r i a l than d i d the uninformed g r o u p . T h i s suggests that even an o u t l i n e of the d i m e n s i o n a l s t r u c t u r e i s h e l p f u l . F r a s e (1973) noted t h a t a d d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about the t e x t s t r u c t u r e to s u b j e c t s ' l e a r n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s ( l i s t i n g the names a n d / o r the a t t r i b u t e s ) may a f f e c t " the ease w i t h which s u b j e c t s c o u l d map the l e a r n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s on the tex t i n the d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s (p . 2 6 0 ) . " D i V e s t a , S c h u l t z and Dangel (1973) t o l d t h e i r s u b j e c t s to adopt a p a r t i c u l a r output s t r a t e g y (name or a t t r i b u t e ) which was e i t h e r congruent or i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the p a s s a g e . They a l s o had a group i n which the s u b j e c t s were f r e e to adopt any s t r a t e g y they c h o s e . They found that the i n c o n g r u e n t c o n d i t i o n f a c i l i t a t e d f r e e r e c a l l , and suggested 8 that i t d i d so because the s u b j e c t was made aware of both types of o r g a n i z a t i o n when the i n s t r u c t i o n s were i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h the passage o r g a n i z a t i o n . Di V e s t a e t . a l (1973) c l a i m e d that t h i s must have a l l o w e d the s u b j e c t to approximate a m a t r i x that p e r m i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to o ther s i t u a t i o n s . Royer , Selfkow and Kropf (1977) found that s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s which were r e l a t e d to p r i o r knowledge s u f f e r e d l e s s r e t r o a c t i v e i n t e r f e r e n c e than d i d s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s which were not r e l a t e d to p r i o r knowledge. Royer and C a b l e (1975, 1976) and Royer and P e r k i n s (1977) found that the i n i t i a l r e a d i n g of prose passages w i t h many c o n c r e t e r e f e r e n t s and p h y s i c a l a n a l o g i e s f a c i l i t a t e d l e a r n i n g from d i f f i c u l t - t o - l e a r n a b s t r a c t prose passages which were s i m i l a r to the i n i t i a l p a s s a g e . They suggested that t h i s f a c i l i t a t i o n p r o b a b l y o c c u r r e d v i a the e s t a b i s h m e n t of a knowledge s t r u c t u r e w i t h the f i r s t passage i n t o which the a b s t r a c t passage c o u l d be a s s i m i l a t e d . In terms of knowledge s t r u c t u r e s , frameworks or schema A n d e r s o n , R e y n o l d s , S c h a l l e r t and Goetz (1977 ) proposed " f rom the p e r s p e c t i v e of schema theory t h a t the p r i n c i p a l de terminant of the knowledge a person can a c q u i r e from r e a d i n g i s the knowledge s /he a l r e a d y p o s s e s s e s ( p . 3 7 8 ) " . C h i (1978) demonstra ted a c o m p e l l i n g case of t h i s . C h i compared c h i l d r e n who were good chess p l a y e r s w i t h a d u l t s who were n o v i c e s . The c h i l d r e n showed b e t t e r r e c a l l than a d u l t s on both immediate r e c a l l and r e p e a t e d r e c a l l ; they had a l a r g e r span f o r chess chunks i n immediate r e c a l l and on the f i r s t t r i a l of the r e p e a t e d r e c a l l task than a d u l t s . However, the c h i l d r e n ' s memory span f o r d i g i t s was s h o r t e r than a d u l t s which i s the u s u a l 9 f i n d i n g i n the l i t e r a t u r e on the development of memory s p a n . T h i s f i n d i n g was i n t e r p r e t e d to support her arguement, that i s , i t i s the c o n t e n t s and c o m p l e x i t y of the l o n g term memory base t o g e t h e r w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the use of c o n t r o l p r o c e s s e s (such as r e h e a r s a l , g r o u p i n g and r e c o d i n g ) which account f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance between a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n i n s h o r t term memory t a s k s . The d i f f e r e n c e i n performance i s not n e c e s s a r i l y due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n the parameters which c h a r a c t e r i z e s h o r t term memory (such as c a p a c i t y and i n f o r m a t i o n l o s s ) . Such d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o n t e n t s and c o m p l e x i t y of the long term memory base would a l s o account f o r v a r i a t i o n i n performance among a d u l t s on these t a s k s , a p o i n t ' which i s r e l e v a n t to the p r e s e n t s t u d y . S p i l i c h , V e s o n d e r , C h i e ' s i and Voss (1979) c o n s t r u c t e d a knowledge framework f o r the game of b a s e b a l l . I t c o n s i s t e d of s e t t i n g , g o a l s t r u c t u r e , game s t a t e , game a c t i o n and nongame a c t i o n s which do not produce changes i n g o a l s t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e s . They l o o k e d at the f r e e r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s and a 40 q u e s t i o n c o m p l e t i o n t e s t on a t e x t passage which d e s c r i b e d a h a l f - i n n i n g account of a b a s e b a l l game. There were two k i n d s of s u b j e c t s , those w i t h h i g h knowledge of b a s e b a l l (HK) and those w i t h low knowledge of b a s e b a l l ( L K ) . They found that i n comparison to the LK s u b j e c t s , the HK s u b j e c t s r e c a l l e d more g o a l r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n , they i n t e g r a t e d sequences of g o a l -r e l a t e d a c t i o n s more and they r e c a l l e d more i n f o r m a t i o n i n the proper o r d e r . A l s o , HK s u b j e c t s gave more c o r r e c t answers to q u e s t i o n s about major game a c t i o n s than LK s u b j e c t s . In summary, these s t u d i e s s t r o n g l y support the view t h a t 1 0 p r i o r knowledge i s an important f a c t o r i n the performance of v a r i o u s t a s k s , i n c l u d i n g e n c o d i n g knowledge from what we r e a d . In the p r e s e n t s t u d y , p r i o r knowledge c o n s i s t s of knowledge of the p o s s i b l e d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of the s t i m u l i which are d e s c r i b e d i n the t e x t p a s s a g e s . I f d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i o r knowledge do i n t e r a c t w i t h t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n , we can use t h i s knowledge to o p t i m i z e l e a r n i n g from tex tbooks and c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n . D . T h e o r e t i c a l Hypotheses Type of tex t o r g a n i z a t i o n : - If the l e a r n e r i s f a m i l i a r w i t h the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s , we would expect a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n to speed up the l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s r e l a t i v e to name o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t i s presumed ' t h a t the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n space a l r e a d y e x i s t s i n the l e a r n e r ' s semantic memory, and that i t would make the task a matter of embedding the i n s t a n c e s i n the space and a t t a c h i n g response l a b e l s to them. A t t r i b u t e - o r g a n i z e d m a t e r i a l s are r e a d i l y e n c o d a b l e i n t o the e x i s t i n g d i m e n s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i l e name-organized m a t e r i a l s are n o t . However, i f the l e a r n e r i s not f a m i l i a r , t h e r e i s no reason to expect a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n to f a c i l i t a t e encoding as no m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n space c o u l d have been e s t a b l i s h e d i n semantic memory. Hence , e n c o d i n g s h o u l d be r e t a r d e d . In f a c t , under these c o n d i t i o n s name-organized m a t e r i a l s would be f a c i l i t a t i v e of e n c o d i n g r a t h e r than a t t r i b u t e - o r g a n i z e d m a t e r i a l s . The reason i s that name-11 o r g a n i z a t i o n i s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the l e a r n e r s ' way of o r g a n i z i n g m a t e r i a l s i n the everyday environment as o b j e c t s . T h i s c o m p a t i b i l i t y i s assumed to m i n i m i z e e n c o d i n g . Our everyday environment i s f u l l of i n s t a n c e s or exemplars of c o n c e p t s whose a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s may w e l l defy d i m e n s i o n a l a n a l y s i s . Text o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y : - Arguements f o r c o g n i t i v e economy suggest t h a t e x t r a c t i n g common a t t r i b u t e s or d i m e n s i o n s and o r g a n i z i n g them i n t o a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space reduces memory l o a d and i n c r e a s e s the l i k e l i h o o d of r e c o g n i z i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s i n s t a n c e s . I f t h i s i s indeed the c a s e , then we would expect a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s to be an o p t i m a l c o n d i t i o n f o r b e t t e r r e c a l l . Input order and t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n : - There i s no agreement i n the l i t e r a t u r e on how the order of the a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s , c o n s t a n t or v a r i e d , i n t e r a c t s w i t h the type of t e x t organ i z a t i o n . M y e r s , Pezdek and C o u l s o n (1973) used f r e e and s e r i a l r e c a l l as dependent v a r i a b l e s , and found that s e r i a l r e c a l l was b e t t e r i n the a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n . I t was so , because s u b j e c t s c o u l d l e a r n s i x l i s t s of a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s i n which the v a l u e s appeared i n the same order i n each l i s t j u s t as they appeared i n the input p a r a g r a p h s . These a u t h o u r s then v a r i e d the o r d e r of names a c r o s s the a t t r i b u t e p a r a g r a p h s and the order of a t t r i b u t e s a c r o s s the name p a r a g r a p h s . They c o n f i r m e d t h e i r h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s e r i a l s t r a t e g i e s support r e c a l l i n the a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n and not i n the name c o n d i t i o n . They suggest 12 that s e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i s an e f f i c i e n t s t r a t e g y , which d e c r e a s e s memory l o a d and that i t s use i s encouraged by the d i m e n s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of m a t e r i a l s . F r a s e (1973) a l s o l o o k e d at the o r d e r of a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s i n both the name-organized and the a t t r i b u t e - o r g a n i z e d c o n d i t i o n s . He found t h a t the a t t r i b u t e - o r g a n i z a t i o n group used a s e r i a l o r d e r l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y as Myers et a l . (1972) p r o p o s e d . When F r a s e made the semantic a s s o c i a t i o n s between a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s e q u i v a l e n t i n Exper iments II and III ( a l l v a l u e s were c o l o r s ) , he found that the performance of the name o r g a n i z a t i o n group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower w i t h v a r i a b i l i t y of a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s than the a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n g r o u p . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t in some s i t u a t i o n s the order of the a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s i s important i n name o r g a n i z a t i o n as w e l l as i n a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n t u i t i v e l y , i t seems r e a s o n a b l e to expect that a c o n s t a n t o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n a c r o s s paragraphs would be e a s i e r i r r e s p e c t i v e of the type of t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n , name or a t t r i b u t e . T h i s may be the case i f we can assume that the s u b j e c t s w i l l p e r c e i v e the c o n s t a n t i n p u t o r d e r w i t h e i t h e r type of tex t o r g a n i z a t i o n , and that they w i l l use the input o r d e r i n t h e i r o u t p u t s . Ordered l i s t s might be more e f f i c i e n t i n the a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n s i n c e t h e r e i s no need to encode any a s s o c i a t i o n s between names of i n s t a n c e s and a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s , p r o v i d e d that the l i s t of names and the l i s t s of a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s (one l i s t per a t t r i b u t e ) m a i n t a i n the same o r d e r . In the name c o n d i t i o n o r d e r e d l i s t s of a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s would a l s o reduce memory l o a d 1 3 even though a name has to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each a t t r i b u t e l i s t . C o n s e q u e n t l y we might expect c o n s t a n t o r d e r to f a c i l i t a t e r e c a l l i n both the name and a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n s p r o v i d e d i t i s p e r c e i v e d to the same extent i n both c o n d i t i o n s . But , because t h e r e i s no need to code a s s o c i a t i o n s i n the a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n , r e c a l l might g e n e r a l l y be more e f f i c i e n t h e r e . However, the a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n has one more l i s t to be memorized, the l i s t of names. 14 Chapter II METHOD A . D e s i g n Three e x p e r i m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t were d e f i n e d : p r o s e o r g a n i z a t i o n (name or a t t r i b u t e ) , s u b j e c t s ' p r e v i o u s knowledge of the d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of the s t i m u l u s set ( f a m i l i a r or u n f a m i l i a r ) , and the order of a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s ( constant or v a r i e d ) . The o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of "prose o r g a n i z a t i o n " and " o r d e r " are d e f i n e d i n the " M a t e r i a l s " s e c t i o n . The v a r i a b l e " f a m i l i a r i t y " was d e f i n e d i n terms of the s u b j e c t s presumed n a i v e t y on the m a t e r i a l s . That i s , . the prose m a t e r i a l s c o n c e r n i n g the d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of f i s h were assumed to be f a m i l i a r because knowledge that they have p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e n v i r o n m e n t s , and are e d i b l e (or not) i s common knowledge. In c o n t r a s t , the d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of chess p i e c e s and r u l e s of the game was assumed to be u n f a m i l i a r to n a i v e s u b j e c t s who do not p l a y c h e s s . Two t r i a l s c o n s t i t u t e d another f a c t o r s i n c e i t has c o n s i s t e n t l y been found that d i f f e r e n c e s between type of o r g a n i z a t i o n do not show up u n t i l the second or t h i r d t r i a l s of r e c a l l p r a c t i c e . The d e s i g n i s a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 w i t h t r i a l s and f a m i l i a r i t y as r e p e a t e d measures and prose o r g a n i z a t i o n and o r d e r of v a l u e s as between group v a r i a b l e s . The dependent measures are the amount r e c a l l e d i n f r e e r e c a l l , a c l u s t e r i n g i n d e x , and i n p u t o r d e r / o u t p u t o r d e r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . 1 5 B. S u b j e c t s S u b j e c t s were 40 s t u d e n t s from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia who do not p l a y c h e s s . S i n c e a l l of the s u b j e c t s were c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s and the prose m a t e r i a l s i n the task were v e r y s i m p l e , no p r e - t e s t f o r r e a d i n g was a d m i n i s t e r e d . S u b j e c t s were asked i f they would l i k e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a prose l e a r n i n g e x p e r i m e n t . They were t o l d that the o n l y r e s t r i c t i o n on p a r t i c i p a t i o n was that they not be a b l e to p l a y c h e s s . To c o n t r o l f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n knowledge of chess among p e o p l e who c o u l d not a c t u a l l y p l a y the-game, the f i r s t s t e p i n the study was to have s u b j e c t s w r i t e out t h e i r s p e c i f i c knowledge about the game. Any p r e v i o u s knowledge which p a r a l l e l e d the a s s e r t i o n s i n the prose passage was deducted from the f r e e r e c a l l s c o r e s . S u b j e c t s were payed $5.00 f o r the one hour r e q u i r e d . C . M a t e r i a l s The s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s were d e v e l o p e d from the f o l l o w i n g ma t r i x : 1 6 T a b l e I . M a t r i x R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of D i m e n s i o n a l S t r u c t u r e of St i m u l u i * f / b = f o r w a r d s / b a c k w a r d s ; * l / r = l e f t / r i g h t ; d i a g . = d i a g o n a l l y D i m e n s i o n a l S t r u c t u r e of S t i m u l u s Set A - Chess P i e c e s Pawn B i shop K n i g h t Rook Queen K i n g Moves Forward d i a g . L - s h a p e d f / b * f / b * f / b 1 / r * 1 /r 1 / r d i a g . d i a g . Squares 1 any no . 3 any no . any no . 1 Jumps cannot cannot can cannot cannot cannot C a p t u r e s d i a g . as moves as moves as moves as moves as moves P o i n t s 1 3 3 5 9 game D i m e n s i o n a l S t r u c t u r e of S t i m u l u s Set B - F i s h H a t f i s h Loopf i s h A r c f i s h B o n e f i s h P i n f i s h S c a l e f i s h C o l o r orange blue red orange orange , o r a n g e , & whi te whi te whi te & b l u e & b l u e F in-shapc t r i a n g l e c u r v e d c u r v e d c u r v e d c u r v e d c u r v e d E d i b l e i s not i s not i s i s not i s not i s not Habi t a t l a k e s oceans r i v e r s oceans oceans l a k e s Depth 1 00 300 300 500 900 unknown (fathoms ) Sentences were genera ted from the 6 x 5 m a t r i x i n T a b l e I . The same sentences were .used f o r both the name o r g a n i z e d and the 1 7 a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d groups w i t h o n l y the g r o u p i n g of the sentences v a r y i n g . In the name c o n d i t i o n , each p a r a g r a p h d e a l s w i t h o n l y one i n s t a n c e , d e s c r i b i n g the f i v e a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t i n s t a n c e . Prose passages o r g a n i z e d by name l i s t e d a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s a c r o s s the rows w i t h one column making up one p a r a g r a p h . In the a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n , each p a r a g r a p h d e a l s w i t h o n l y one a t t r i b u t e . Prose passages o r g a n i z e d by a t t r i b u t e s l i s t e d a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s a c r o s s the columns w i t h one row making up one p a r a g r a p h . The name o r g a n i z e d prose m a t e r i a l c o n s i s t s of s i x paragraphs each w i t h f i v e s e n t e n c e s , the a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d m a t e r i a l c o n s i s t s of f i v e paragraphs each w i t h s i x s e n t e n c e s . E f f o r t was made to make the i n t e r a c t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s of a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s as e q u i v a l e n t as p o s s i b l e f o r the two types of m a t e r i a l s , f i s h d e s c r i p t i o n s and chess p i e c e d e s c r i p t i o n s . The a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s are i n the same o r d e r a c r o s s paragraphs f o r one h a l f the s u b j e c t s ( cons tant o r d e r ) and i n a v a r i a b l e o r d e r i n each p a r a g r a p h f o r the o ther h a l f of the s u b j e c t s ( v a r i a b l e o r d e r ) i n both the name and a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n s . Type of m a t e r i a l , f i s h or chess p i e c e s , i s c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d f o r o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n . [ See Appendix f o r a sample of one of the t e s t b o o k l e t s which c o n t a i n s the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s f o r A t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n / V a r i e d o r d e r as w e l l as i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the s u b j e c t ] . I t i s assumed t h a t , a l t h o u g h n o n - c h e s s p l a y e r s are not c o g n i z a n t of the d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of chess p i e c e s , they are as f a m i l i a r w i t h the d i m e n s i o n s "moves" , " c a p t u r e s " , " p o i n t s " , " j u m p s " , and " s q u a r e s " as they are w i t h the d i m e n s i o n s " c o l o r " , 18 " h a b i t a t " , " f i n - s h a p e " , " e d i b l e " , and " d e p t h " . O t h e r w i s e knowledge of d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n w i l l be confounded w i t h knowledge of the dimensions or a t t r i b u t e s . D . P r o c e d u r e S u b j e c t s were run i n s m a l l groups v a r y i n g i n s i z e .from 1-6; most of the s u b j e c t s were run i n d i v i d u a l l y . The t e s t b o o k l e t s were a r r a n g e d beforehand i n o r d e r e d s e t s , each c o n t a i n i n g one of the e i g h t p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n s . They were handed out to the s u b j e c t s as they appeared f o r t e s t i n g . Each s u b j e c t was g i v e n a t e s t b o o k l e t c o n t a i n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s and the two types of prose p a s s a g e s , f i s h and chess p i e c e s , and they were a l s o g i v e n a s tack of s m a l l index c a r d s numbered from 1-100. S u b j e c t s were asked to w r i t e out what they knew about the game of chess on the f i r s t c a r d ( s ) . They were then g i v e n two study t r i a l s on the names of the f i s h and the chess p i e c e s . Next they were asked to read the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the task [ See Appendix f o r a copy of the i n s t r u c t i o n s which were i n c l u d e d i n the t e s t b o o k l e t ] . These i n s t r u c t i o n s were o u t l i n e d on the b l a c k b o a r d so that the s u b j e c t c o u l d r e f e r to them at any time d u r i n g the t a s k . There were two t r i a l s f o r each of the two passages ( f i s h d e s c r i p t i o n and chess d e s c r i p t i o n ) . Each t r i a l c o n s i s t e d of f i v e minutes f o r r e a d i n g the passage , 60 seconds of c o u n t i n g backwards from 301 by 3 ' s , and 6 minutes to w r i t e down what they remembered from the p a s s a g e . I t was s t r e s s e d t h a t they s h o u l d w r i t e j u s t one idea on a c a r d and that they s h o u l d not go back to a p r e v i o u s c a r d but use the next c a r d i n the sequence . T h i s was emphasized because F r a s e (1969), Friedman and G r e i t z e r 19 (1972), and S c h u l t z and D i V e s t a (1972) a l l found that s u b j e c t s demonstrated a pronounced tendency to o r g a n i z e t h e i r w r i t t e n output i n f r e e r e c a l l by name r e g a r d l e s s of i n p u t o r g a n i z a t i o n (random, name or a t t r i b u t e ) . P e r l m u t t e r and Royer (1973) had t h e i r s u b j e c t s w r i t e each r e c a l l e d sentence on a separa te page. They found t h a t s u b j e c t s then tended to o r g a n i z e t h e i r w r i t t e n output a c c o r d i n g to the input they r e c e i v e d whether that i n p u t was name o r g a n i z e d or a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d . Each p a r t of the task was t imed by the exper imenter u s i n g a s t o p w a t c h . The e n t i r e task took one h o u r . E . S c o r i n g Free R e c a l l : Free r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s were s c o r e d as f o l l o w s : To be s c o r e d as c o r r e c t , a statement must a s s e r t a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a name ( i n s t a n c e ) and an a t t r i b u t e v a l u e which i s e q u i v a l e n t to one of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the prose p a s s a g e . Free r e c a l l s c o r e s were based on c o r r e c t a s s e r t i o n s o n l y . I f the s u b j e c t knew some of the a s s e r t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n the chess m a t e r i a l s p r i o r to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the t a s k , these were deducted from t o t a l r e c a l l scores f o r chess m a t e r i a l s . C l u s t e r i n g : A formula used by F r a s e (1969) was used to determine c l u s t e r i n g i n d i c e s . In the l i t e r a t u r e on the s u b j e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n of word l i s t s , c l u s t e r i n g i n d i c e s are used to i n f e r the way i n which s u b j e c t s o r g a n i z e or r e - o r g a n i z e the i n p u t m a t e r i a l s . The s u b j e c t ' s s tatements were l i s t e d s e q u e n t i a l l y i n the order i n which the s u b j e c t wrote them down. Both c o r r e c t and i n c o r r e c t a s s e r t i o n s were u s e d . For the - a t t r i b u t e c l u s t e r i n g 20 i n d e x , the a t t r i b u t e s i n the m a t r i x were a s s i g n e d d i g i t s from 1 to . 5 . A s s e r t i o n s i n the s u b j e c t s ' o u t p u t s were a s s i g n e d the d i g i t f o r the a t t r i b u t e i t d e s c r i b e d . A sequence of d i g i t s was o b t a i n e d f o r each passage . The amount of a t t r i b u t e c l u s t e r i n g was d e t e r m i n e d by c o u n t i n g the number of t imes a p a r t i c u l a r d i g i t was r e p e a t e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y (R) d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of a t t r i b u t e sentences (T) l e s s the number of c a t e g o r i e s (K) used i n the m a t e r i a l s . K i s s u b t r a c t e d from T s i n c e the f i r s t a t t r i b u t e d e s c r i p t i o n of each name cannot be c o n s i d e r e d a r e p e t i t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , the a t t r i b u t e c l u s t e r index= R / T - K x 100. A s i m i l a r index can be computed f o r name c l u s t e r i n g by a s s i g n i n g d i g i t s from 1 to 6 to the names , a s s i g n i n g a p p r o p r i a t e d i g i t s to the s u b j e c t s a s s e r t i o n s and c o u n t i n g r e p e t i t i o n s . The formula i s the same except that K=6 not 5 i n name c l u s t e r i n g . F . P r e d i c t i o n s For a s t i m u l u s set whose d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n the s u b j e c t i s f a m i l i a r w i t h ( f i s h d e s c r i p t i o n s ) , the best r e c a l l was p r e d i c t e d f o r the a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n . For a s t i m u l u s set whose d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n the s u b j e c t i s not f a m i l i a r w i t h (chess d e s c r i p t i o n s ) , the name c o n d i t i o n was p r e d i c t e d to y i e l d s u p e r i o r r e c a l l . Because of the c o g n i t i v e economy a v a i l a b l e i n d i m e n s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , the best r e c a l l s h o u l d be w i t h a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . A c o n s t a n t o r d e r of a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s s h o u l d f a c i l i t a t e r e c a l l more than a v a r i e d o r d e r i n both the a t t r i b u t e and name c o n d i t i o n s p r o v i d e d that s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e the o r d e r . Comparison of input o r d e r and output o r d e r w i l l be used to i n f e r whether or 21 not s u b j e c t s a c t u a l l y p e r c e i v e the o r d e r . 22 Chapter III RESULTS The ERSC:MULTIVAR program was used to a n a l y z e the data because the c l u s t e r i n g index i s a p r o p o r t i o n and i s t r e a t e d by s u b j e c t s as a t r i n a r y v a r i a b l e . The data were t r a n s f o r m e d so that Y (Transformed v a l u e ) = A r c s i n J X/10 + 0.5 i n order to reduce the range and s t a b i l i z e the v a r i a n c e . A . Free R e c a l l Over h a l f of the s u b j e c t s knew n o t h i n g at a l l r e l e v a n t to the chess m a t e r i a l s . Most of the r e m a i n i n g s u b j e c t s knew one or two chess f a c t s which were c o n t a i n e d i n the m a t e r - i a l s , but these s u b j e c t s were r e p r e s e n t e d i n a l l the c o n d i t i o n s . At Type I e r r o r = 0 . 0 5 , the main e f f e c t s of t r i a l s and f a m i l i a r i t y were both s i g n i f i c a n t , F (1 ,36)=85.84, 2 <0.0001 and F ( 1 , 36 ) = 1 3 . 32 , p_ <0.0009, r e s p e c t i v e l y (MSE=18.716 f o r t r i a l s , and MSE=27.716 f o r f a m i l i a r i t y ) . R e c a l l was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on the second t r i a l and h i g h e r w i t h the f a m i l i a r ( f i s h d e s c r i p t i o n s ) m a t e r i a l s , as p r e d i c t e d . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between order and f a m i l i a r i t y F (1 ,36)=4.36, 2 <0.044. Constant o r d e r i n the f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s was s u p e r i o r to v a r i e d o r d e r , but t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e i n order f o r the u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . 23 Reca l l 5S" so IS" 10 CW-fci) Varied F i g u r e 1: I n t e r a c t i o n between order and f a m i l i a r i t y i n r e c a l l s c o r e s . The i n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t , F (1 ,36)=5.70 , p_ <0.022, but the i n t e r a c t i o n was not i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n : Name o r g a n i z a t i o n of the f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s l e d to b e t t e r r e c a l l than a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the • u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s l e d to b e t t e r r e c a l l than name o r g a n i z a t i o n . Recall AO IS to Uo-feo) v N a m e Oca^^ion f a m i l i a r (HsU') lUvfami I i a r CCUc&s) F i g u r e 2: I n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y i n f r e e r e c a l l s c o r e s . The o r d e r v a r i a b l e approached s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h F (1 ,36)=2.920, p <0.096 w i t h c o n s t a n t order b e i n g s u p e r i o r to 24 v a r i e d o r d e r . C o n t r a r y to p r e d i c t i o n , the main e f f e c t of type of t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n , name or a t t r i b u t e , was not s i g n i f i c a n t . B . I n p u t o r d e r / O u t p u t order Correspondence In the c o n s t a n t order c o n d i t i o n f o r both name and a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n , output o r d e r p a r a l l e l e d i n p u t o r d e r f a i r l y c l o s e l y except i n the a t t r i b u t e / c o n s t a n t o r d e r c o n d i t i o n i n which some s u b j e c t s r e o r g a n i z e d output w i t h i n those c a t e g o r i e s i n which f u r t h e r r e o r g a n i z a t i o n was p o s s i b l e . In the v a r i e d o r d e r c o n d i t i o n some s u b j e c t s imposed t h e i r own o r d e r or chose an i n p u t order from one of the c a t e g o r i e s and used i t i n output f o r a l l of the c a t e g o r i e s . Other s u b j e c t s i n the v a r i e d o r d e r c o n d i t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t , t r i e d to m a i n t a i n the v a r i e d o r d e r i n p u t . However, one person w i t h a t t r i b u t e / v a r i e d order not o n l y a c h i e v e d a c o n s t a n t order i n o u t p u t , t h i s person a l s o r e o r g a n i z e d t h e i r output w i t h i n those c a t e g o r i e s which a l l o w e d f o r r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . V a r i a t i o n s between s u b j e c t s i n how they h a n d l e d o r d e r were q u i t e great and no c o n s i s t e n t approaches w i t h i n c o n d i t i o n s were o b v i o u s . S i x out of 20 s u b j e c t s w i t h name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t s w i t c h e d to a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e i r output on two or more of t h e i r four t r i a l s ( there were two t r i a l s f o r -each type of m a t e r i a l ) . No s u b j e c t w i t h a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t s w i t c h e d to name o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e i r output on two or more t r i a l s . Most of the s u b j e c t s who s w i t c h e d used a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t h e i r output f o r b o t h f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . Only one of the s i x p e o p l e who s w i t c h e d used a t t r i b u t e output f o r one set of 25 m a t e r i a l s ( f a m i l i a r ) and name output f o r the other set of m a t e r i a l s ( u n f a m i l i a r ) ; the r e c a l l of t h i s s u b j e c t was p e r f e c t (30/30) on t r i a l 2 f o r both s e t s of m a t e r i a l s so he seemed to use both k i n d s of o r g a n i z a t i o n i n output e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e l y . C . C l u s t e r i n g I n d i c e s The c l u s t e r i n g index i n d i c a t e s how much output o r d e r p a r a l l e l s input o r d e r f o r each g r o u p . There was no main e f f e c t f o r t r i a l s or f a m i l i a r i t y i n c l u s t e r i n g i n d i c a t i n g that s u b j e c t s used c l u s t e r i n g as much on the f i r s t t r i a l as they d i d on the second t r i a l , and that they used c l u s t e r i n g as much w i t h f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s as w i t h u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . There was, however, a main e f f e c t f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n F ( 1 , 36) = 1 1 . 72 , p_ <0.002 (MSE=0.0143) w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c l u s t e r i n g i n the a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n . The i n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y approached s i g n i f i c a n c e F (1 ,36)=2.86, 2 < 0 . 1 0 w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e i n c l u s t e r i n g between name and a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n s f o r f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s b e i n g g r e a t e r than the d i f f e r e n c e i n c l u s t e r i n g between name and a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t i o n s f o r u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . (bo Cluster ing Fauvu'U'air (Fis.u') Ui/vfa.wu li'ar (CUe&s) F i g u r e 3: I n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y i n CSS •<*<>) 26 c l u s t e r i n g i n d i c e s . In summary, t h e r e was more a t t r i b u t e c l u s t e r i n g than name c l u s t e r i n g o v e r a l l , and more a t t r i b u t e c l u s t e r i n g than name c l u s t e r i n g w i t h f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s than t h e r e was w i t h u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s , a l t h o u g h t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 l e v e l . 27 Chapter IV DISCUSSION The main e f f e c t f o r f a m i l i a r i t y of m a t e r i a l s i s not unexpected as i t i s not unreasonable to expect that f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s would be more e f f i c i e n t l y p r o c e s s e d than u n f a m i l i a r mater i a l s . One very i n t r i g u i n g q u e s t i o n emerging from the r e s u l t s i s why the d i r e c t i o n of the i n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y was c o n t r a r y to the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n , and i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the f i n d i n g s of F r a s e (1969) and Friedman and G r e i t z e r (1972) . A p o s s i b l e reason f o r the d i s c r e p a n c y between the p r e s e n t study and the e a r l i e r s t u d i e s i s the d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of a t t r i b u t e s used to d e s c r i b e the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s . F r a s e (1969) used o n l y chess d e s c r i p t i o n s which v a r i e d on e i g h t a t t r i b u t e s . He found that a t t r i b u t e and name o r g a n i z a t i o n were e q u i v a l e n t i n terms of r e c a l l . Friedman and G r e i t z e r (1972) used o n l y f i s h d e s c r i p t i o n s which v a r i e d on t h r e e a t t r i b u t e s . They found a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n to be s u p e r i o r to name o r g a n i z a t i o n i n r e c a l l . The p r e s e n t s tudy used f i v e a t t r i b u t e s and found name • o r g a n i z a t i o n to be s u p e r i o r to a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r f i s h m a t e r i a l s , and a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n to be s u p e r i o r to name o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r chess m a t e r i a l s . In a l l t h r e e s t u d i e s the number of i n s t a n c e s was s i x . T h e r e f o r e , i t seems l i k e l y t h a t the number of a t t r i b u t e s (8 ,5 ,3 ) i s a l s o a v a r i a b l e which i n t e r a c t s w i t h p r i o r knowledge and tex t o r g a n i z a t i o n . S i n c e t h e r e i s no 28 data f o r chess m a t e r i a l s w i t h t h r e e a t t r i b u t e s and f o r f i s h m a t e r i a l s w i t h e i g h t a t t r i b u t e s , i t i s n ' t o b v i o u s j u s t how t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n would work. Another source of v a r i a t i o n between the t h r e e s t u d i e s i s the l e n g t h of study time a l l o w e d . Friedman and G r e i t z e r (1972) had t h r e e minutes of s tudy time v e r s u s f i v e minutes i n the p r e s e n t study and e i g h t minutes i n F r a s e ' s (1969) s t u d y . Study time i s o b v i o u s l y a r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e in r e l a t i o n to p r i o r knowledge, but s i n c e the number of minutes of s tudy time (8 ,5 ,3 ) p a r a l l e l s the number of a t t r i b u t e s (8 ,5 ,3 ) i n the t h r e e s t u d i e s , i t i s n ' t c l e a r whether s tudy time i n t e r a c t s w i t h text o r g a n i z a t i o n , or whether t h e r e i s a t h r e e way i n t e r a c t i o n i n c l u d i n g p r i o r knowledge as a v a r i a b l e . In o r d e r to look f o r reasons why the o b t a i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n was i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n of the p r e d i c t e d i n t e r a c t i o n , we must r e t u r n to the arguements f o r the o r i g i n a l p r e d i c t i o n . The p r e d i c t e d i n t e r a c t i o n was based on the arguement that the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space was a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d f o r f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s so t h a t the task might have amounted to embedding the i n s t a n c e s at the c o r r e c t p o i n t s w i t h i n the space and a t t a c h i n g response l a b e l s to them. A t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d t e x t s h o u l d f a c i l i t a t e t h i s p r o c e s s more than name o r g a n i z e d t e x t because the a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d t e x t p a r a l l e l s the e x i s t i n g d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e . The q u e s t i o n i s , t h e n , why are u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s r e c a l l e d b e t t e r when p r e s e n t e d i n an a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n than i n a name o r g a n i z a t i o n when presumably n o n - c h e s s p l a y i n g s u b j e c t s have no such r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l 29 space? And, c o n v e r s e l y why are f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s r e c a l l e d b e t t e r w i t h name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t when, presumably , the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space a l r e a d y e x i s t s f o r these m a t e r i a l s ? We c o u l d q u e s t i o n whether the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space i s i n f a c t e s t a b l i s h e d f o r the f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s and i s not f o r the u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . A l t h o u g h t h e r e was some measured v a r i a t i o n i n s u b j e c t s ' r e l e v a n t knowledge about c h e s s , the s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d that they do not p l a y chess and many s u b j e c t s knew p r a c t i c a l l y n o t h i n g about the game except f o r a few names of p i e c e s . T h e i r knowledge of the p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n on the d i m e n s i o n s which c h a r a c t e r i z e l i v i n g organisms s h o u l d make the d i m e n s i o n a l space f o r these m a t e r i a l s easy to e s t a b l i s h . G i v e n u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s , i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r s u b j e c t s to set up a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space i n the time a l l o w e d f o r the t a s k , and to embed at l e a s t some of i n s t a n c e s w i t h i n the space w i t h t h e i r response l a b e l s a t t a c h e d . The reason they c o u l d do t h i s b e t t e r w i t h a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t than w i t h name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t might be t h a t they have had l i t t l e or no hands-on sensory e x p e r i e n c e w i t h chess p i e c e s . T h i s l a c k of c o n c r e t e e x p e r i e n c e might minimize the tendency to t r e a t chess p i e c e s as o b j e c t s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by unique c o m b i n a t i o n s of a t t r i b u t e s , a s t r u c t u r e which i s p a r a l l e l e d i n name o r g a n i z e d t e x t . The advantage of a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d t e x t over name o r g a n i z e d tex t when people have minimal e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the s t i m u l i d e s c r i b e d i n the tex t may be that a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z a t i o n makes i t e a s i e r f o r them to set up a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e . Lockhead (1970) i n i t i a l l y assumed two s u b - p r o c e s s e s : (1) s e t t i n g up the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space 30 (2) embedding the i n s t a n c e s w i t h i n i t w i t h response l a b e l s a t t a c h e d . In r e a l wor ld e x p e r i e n c e w i t h d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l i , the two s u b - p r o c e s s e s p r o b a b l y take p l a c e more or l e s s c o n c u r r e n t l y , but i n a s t r u c t u r e d l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n o u t l i n i n g the d i m e n s i o n a l space f i r s t may be a more e f f i c i e n t way of a c q u i r i n g knowledge of the i n s t a n c e s . There i s s t i l l a second q u e s t i o n to be examined. Why do people r e c a l l f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s b e t t e r w i t h name i n p u t when they are q u i t e w i l l i n g to use an a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d output? T h i s was i n d i c a t e d by the s w i t c h to a t t r i b u t e output by s i x out of twenty s u b j e c t s who r e c e i v e d name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t and by the g r e a t e r degree of a t t r i b u t e c l u s t e r i n g w i t h f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s . I t may be that name input emphasizes the- second s u b - p r o c e s s d e s c r i b e d by Lockhead (1970). A t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t would not n e c e s s a r i l y f a c i l i t a t e the second s u b - p r o c e s s w h i l e i t would f a c i l i t a t e the f i r s t s u b - p r o c e s s . S i n c e , g i v e n the f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s , the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space i s more or l e s s p r e -e s t a b l i s h e d , s u b j e c t s c o u l d devote task time to embedding the i n s t a n c e s i n the space w i t h response l a b e l s a t t a c h e d . T h i s second s u b - p r o c e s s i n L o c k h e a d ' s model i s f a c i l i t a t e d by the name i n p u t by p r o v i d i n g a l l of the d i m e n s i o n a l c o o r d i n a t e s f o r each i n s t a n c e at once . T h i s would a l s o h e l p account f o r the o v e r a l l s u p e r i o r performance i n r e c a l l of f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s as the task time c o u l d be a l l o c a t e d to the second s u b - p r o c e s s r a t h e r than b e i n g d i v i d e d between both s u b - p r o c e s s e s . The problem w i t h the o r i g i n a l arguement f o r the p r e d i c t e d i n t e r a c t i o n i s that i t d i d not t r e a t the n o t i o n of the two s u b -p r o c e s s e s of L o c k h e a d ' s model as a v i a b l e e x p l a n a t o r y i d e a . 31 The i n t e r a c t i o n between text o r g a n i z a t i o n and the two sub-p r o c e s s e s g i v e n a c e r t a i n l e v e l of f a m i l i a r i t y can e l u c i d a t e the i n t r i g u i n g a s p e c t s of the p r e s e n t d a t a . With f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s f o r which the d i m e n s i o n a l space a l r e a d y e x i s t s , name i n p u t f a c i l i t a t e s the second s u b - p r o c e s s . With u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s f o r which the d i m e n s i o n a l space does not e x i s t , a t t r i b u t e i n p u t f a c i l i t a t e s the f i r s t s u b - p r o c e s s . In t h i s case some of the second s u b - p r o c e s s i s a c c o m p l i s h e d as w e l l o t h e r w i s e there would be very low r e c a l l s c o r e s . A t h i r d q u e s t i o n i s , why do s u b j e c t s use more a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d output w i t h f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s when a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t f o r these same m a t e r i a l s l e a d s to s i g n i f i c a n t l y poorer r e c a l l , as compared to name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t ? T h i s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a t t r i b u t e output w i t h f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s might be due to the e x i s t e n c e of the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e . But the poorer r e c a l l w i t h a t t r i b u t e i n p u t of f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s must s t i l l be e x p l a i n e d . However, we must remember that a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t l e a d s to almost e q u i v a l e n t r e c a l l f o r f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s (X=20.6) and u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s (X=19.55) . T h e r e f o r e i t i s r e a l l y the d i f f e r e n c e i n name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t f o r f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s which must be e x p l a i n e d . The s u p e r i o r i t y of name i n p u t f o r f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s has a l r e a d y been e x p l a i n e d i n terms of an i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the two s u b -p r o c e s s e s : Name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t f a c i l i t a t e s embedding i f and o n l y i f the d i m e n s i o n a l space has been e s t a b l i s h e d . If the space i s not e s t a b l i s h e d , name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t i s l e s s h e l p f u l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g i t than a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t . Only name input s u b j e c t s s w i t c h e d to a t t r i b u t e output on 32 two or more of the four t r i a l s . If we look at t r i a l 2 r e c a l l o n l y , 4 of these 6 s u b j e c t s who s w i t c h e d d i d so f o r both types of m a t e r i a l s , f a m i l i a r and u n f a m i l i a r . T h e i r r e c a l l performance i s very i n t e r e s t i n g compared to the performance of name i n p u t s u b j e c t s who used name o u t p u t . With f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s , the performance of s u b j e c t s who s w i t c h e d i s almost p e r f e c t , X=29.3, as compared to X=25.1 f o r the ones who d i d not s w i t c h . With u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s , the r e c a l l performance of the s u b j e c t s who s w i t c h e d ,'X"=23.5, was c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r than the mean f o r the s u b j e c t s who d i d not s w i t c h , X=19.8 . The s u b j e c t s who s w i t c h e d to a d i f f e r e n t ouput o r g a n i z a t i o n appear to be l i k e the s u b j e c t s i n the study by D i V e s t a , S c h u l t z and Dangel (1973) i n the c o n d i t i o n where output o r g a n i z a t i o n d i f f e r e d from i n p u t o r g a n i z a t i o n . These r e s e a r c h e r s suggested t h a t s u b j e c t s c o u l d a c c e s s the m a t r i x both ways, v i a names or a t t r i b u t e s . T h e i r s u b j e c t s were c o l l e g e undergraduates and t h e i r m a t e r i a l s were imaginary c o u n t r i e s v a r y i n g on a t t r i b u t e s l i k e government, b i r t h r a t e , t e c h n o l o g y and p o p u l a t i o n growth . In the p r e s e n t s t u d y , the r e s u l t s suggest that when f a m i l i a r i t y i s a v a r i a b l e , more than j u s t o p t i o n a l modes of a c c e s s i n g may be o c c u r r i n g . I t may be t h a t a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t makes i t s major c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n s l space when the m a t e r i a l s are u n f a m i l i a r , and name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t improves the l e v e l of r e t e n t i o n once s u b j e c t s are f a m i l i a r w i t h the p o s s i b l e d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n . A study to t e s t t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o u l d p r e s e n t the same u n f a m i l i a r m a t e r i a l s to groups of s u b j e c t s but w i t h both t y p e s of t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n , name and a t t r i b u t e . The order of p r e s e n t a t i o n would be the 33 independent v a r i a b l e . The p r e d i c t i o n would be that a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d i n p u t f i r s t and name o r g a n i z e d i n p u t second would be s u p e r i o r to name i n p u t f i r s t and e i t h e r name or a t t r i b u t e s e c o n d . I t would a l s o be i n t e r e s t i n g to see i f the r e s u l t s of the p r e s e n t study would be r e p l i c a t e d w i t h a d u l t s who are wi thout knowledge of some c o n t e n t a rea and c h i l d r e n who are knowledgeable ; a l s o w i t h c h i l d r e n , some of whom are knowedgeable i n an area and some of whom are n o t . I t would be p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g to look at the performance of s i x - y e a r o l d s who , a c c o r d i n g to some r e s e a r c h e r s (Smith and K e m l e r , 1977), do not use separa te d i m e n s i o n s when c l a s s i f y i n g s t i m u l i ; they use o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i t y i n s t e a d . R e p l i c a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e these r e s u l t s c o u l d be used i n i n s t r u c t i o n . At the moment these r e s u l t s suggest a t e n t a t i v e p r a c t i c a l idea f o r t e x t o r g a n i z a t i o n . That i s , i f the l e a r n e r i s not f a m i l i a r w i t h the m a t e r i a l , an a t t r i b u t e o r g a n i z e d p r e s e n t a t i o n i s best f o r r e t e n t i o n of m a t e r i a l s . But , i f the l e a r n e r i s f a m i l i a r w i t h the d i m e n s i o n a l v a r i a t i o n of the s t i m u l i , name o r g a n i z e d input w i l l l e a d to b e t t e r r e t e n t i o n . M a n i p u l a t i o n of the v a r i a b l e , f a m i l i a r i t y , was not e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y i n that i t i n v o l v e d making assumptions about the s u b j e c t s ' p r i o r knowledge. M a n i p u l a t i n g the v a r i a b l e e x p e r i m e n t a l l y , f o r example, i n terms of the number of exposures to the tex t m a t e r i a l s , would be more r e l i a b l e . 34 REFERENCES A n d e r s o n , R . C . " E n c o d i n g p r o c e s s e s i n the s torage and r e t r i e v a l of s e n t e n c e s . " J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y 1971, 91, 338-340. A n d e r s o n , R . C . and P i c h e r t , J . W . " R e c a l l of p r e v i o u s l y u n r e c a l l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f o l l o w i n g a s h i f t i n p e r s p e c t i v e . " J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r 1978 ,17 , 1-12. A n d e r s o n , R . C . , R e y n o l d s , R . E . , S c h a l l e r t , D . L . , G o e t z , E . T . "Frameworks f o r Comprehending D i s c o u r s e " Amer i can  E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , F a l l , 1977, 14, 4, 367-381. A n d e r s o n , R . C . , S p i r o , R . J . , and A n d e r s o n , M . C . "Schemata as s c a f f o l d i n g f o r the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n in c o n n e c t e d d i s c o u r s e . " American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l 1978, 15, 3, 433-440. C h i , M . T . H . "Knowledge s t r u c t u r e s and memory d e v e l o p m e n t . " C h i l d r e n s ' T h i n k i n g : What D e v e l o p s ? R . S . S i ' e g l e r , E d . 1978, H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Lawrence Er lbaum A s s o c i a t e s . D i V e s t a , F . J . , S c ' h u l t z , C . B . and D a n g e l , T . R . "Passage o r g a n i z a t i o n and imposed l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n comprehension and r e c a l l of connected d i s c o u r s e . " Memory and C o g n i t i o n 1973, 1, 4, 471-476. F e n k e r , R . and T e e s , S . " M e a s u r i n g the c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s of p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n : A m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g a n a l y s i s of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance and s i m i l a r i t y e s t i m a t i o n . " M u l t i v a r i a t e B e h a v i o r a l R e s e a r c h 1976, 11, 339-352. F r a s e , L . T . " P a r a g r a p h o r g a n i z a t i o n of w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s : The i n f l u e n c e of c o n c e p t u a l c l u s t e r i n g upon the l e v e l and o r g a n i z a t i o n of r e c a l l . " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology 1969, 60, 5, 394-401. F r a s e , L . T . " I n t e g r a t i o n of w r i t t e n t e x t . " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  P s y c h o l o g y 1973, 65, 2, 252-261. F r i e d m a n , M . P . and G r e i t z e r , F . L . " O r g a n i z a t i o n and study time i n l e a r n i n g from r e a d i n g . " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology 1972, 63, 6, 609-616. 35 G a r n e r , W . R . The P r o c e s s i n g of I n f o r m a t i o n and S t r u c t u r e . Potomac, M d . : E r l b a u m , 1974. G a r n e r , W . R . " I n t e r a c t i o n of s t i m u l u s d i m e n s i o n s i n concept and c h o i c e p r o c e s s e s . " C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y 1976, 8, 98-123. H u t t e n l o c h e r , J . and Burke ,D. "Why does memory span i n c r e a s e w i t h age?" C o g n i t i v e Psychology 1976, 8, 1-31. L o c k h e a d , G . R . " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the form of the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a i o n s p a c e . " J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology 1970, 85, 1-10. L o c k h e a d , G . R . " P r o c e s s i n g d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l i : A n o t e . " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review 1972, 79, 410-419. M y e r s , J . L . , P e z d e k , K . and C o u l s o n , D . " E f f e c t of prose o r g a n i z a t i o n upon f r e e r e c a l l . " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  P s y c h o l o g y 1973, 65, 3, 313-320. P e r l m u t t e r , J . and R o y e r , J . M . " O r g a n i z a t i o n of prose m a t e r i a l s : S t i m u l u s , s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l . " Canadian J o u r n a l of  P s y c h o l o g y 1973, 27, 2, 200-209. R o y e r , J . M . and C a b l e , G . W . " F a c i l i t a t e d l e a r n i n g i n connected d i s c o u r s e . " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 1975, 67, 116-121. R o y e r , J . M . and C a b l e , G . W . " I l l u s t r a t i o n s , a n a l o g i e s , and f a c i l i t a t i v e t r a n s f e r i n prose l e a r n i n g . " J o u r n a l of  E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology 1976, 68, 2, 205-209. R o y e r , J . M . and P e r k i n s , M . R . " F a c i l i t a t i v e t r a n s f e r in prose l e a r n i n g over an extended p e r i o d of t i m e . " J o u r n a l of  Reading B e h a v i o r 1977, 9 ,185-188. R o y e r , J . M . , S e l f k o w , S . R . and K r o p f , R . B . " C o n t r i b u t i o n of e x i s t i n g knowledge s t r u c t u r e to r e t r o a c t i v e i n h i b i t i o n i n prose l e a r n i n g . " Contemporary E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 1977, 2, 31-36. S c h u s t a c k , M . W . and A n d e r s o n , J . R . "The e f f e c t s of analogy to p r i o r knowledge on memory f o r new i n f o r m a t i o n . " J o u r n a l . o f  V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r 1979, 18, 565-583. 36 S m i t h , L . B . and K e m l e r , D . G . " D e v e l o p m e n t a l t r e n d s i n f r e e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : E v i d e n c e f o r a new c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of p e r c e p t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t . " J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l C h i l d  P s y c h o l o g y , 1977, 24, 279-298. S p i l i c h , G . J . , V e s o n d e r , G . T . , C h i e s i , H . L . and V o s s , J . F . "Text p r o c e s s i n g of d o m a i n - r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n f o r i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h i g h and low domain k n o w l e d g e . " J o u r n a l of V e r b a l  L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r 1979, 18, 275-290. APPENDIX I n s t r u c t i o n s and S t i m u l u s M a t e r i a l s ( A t t r i b u t e O r g a n i z a t i o n / V a r i e d Order) 38 P l e a s e w r i t e on the f i r s t c a r d ( s ) a l l the s p e c i f i c knowledge t h a t you have about the game of c h e s s , i n c l u d i n g names of the p i e c e s , r u l e s of the game, s t r a t e g i e s , e t c . I w i l l t e l l you when i t i s time to s t o p and t u r n to the next page. 39 Read through the two l i s t s of words on t h i s page i n order to f a m i l i a r i z e y o u r s e l f w i t h them. There w i l l be one minute to do t h i s , then I w i l l ask you to t u r n the b o o k l e t over and to use the next c a r d i n the p i l e to w r i t e them out from memory. T h i s w i l l be r e p e a t e d once . H a t f i s h Loopf i sh Arc f i sh Bonef i s h P i n f i s h S c a l e f i sh Pawn B i shop K n i g h t Rook Queen K i n g 40 T h i s experiment i s concerned w i t h how p e o p l e l e a r n from w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s . You w i l l be g i v e n f i v e minutes to read a passage and f i v e minutes to w r i t e down the i n f o r m a t i o n you have l e a r n e d from the p a s s a g e . P l e a s e do not make notes as you r e a d . When you w r i t e down what you remember, p l e a s e w r i t e each s e p a r a t e sentence or phrase on a separa te c a r d i n the o r d e r that you remember the i d e a s and p l a c e the c a r d s face down to your r i g h t as you f i n i s h w r i t i n g on them. The c a r d s are numbered i n sequence . Do not go back to change or add to a c a r d you have a l r e a d y w r i t t e n o n , j u s t use the next c a r d i n t-he sequence to w r i t e down what you remember. D o n ' t worry about u s i n g complete s e n t e n c e s . Next you w i l l be asked to r e - r e a d the same passage f o r f i v e minutes and to once more w r i t e down the i n f o r m a t i o n you have l e a r n e d w i t h one sentence or phrase per c a r d i n the o r d e r i n which you remember them. At the end of t h i s w r i t i n g p e r i o d , I w i l l ask you to t u r n the page and read a new passage f o r f i v e minutes and to w r i t e down the i n f o r m a t i o n you have l e a r n e d from i t as w e l l . Then you w i l l be asked to r e - r e a d t h i s second passage . There are j u s t two passages i n the t a s k . A l l r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g t imes w i l l be f i v e m i n u t e s , and I w i l l be t i m i n g them a l l f o r y o u . There i s l o t s of time so d o n ' t r u s h . Do not t r y to memorize the passages word-f o r - w o r d , but do t r y to remember s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i n the p a s s a g e . In between r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g you w i l l be asked to s i l e n t l y count backwards from 301 by 3 's f o r 60 seconds and to w r i t e the numbers on the next blank c a r d i n the p i l e . T h i s i s to see how e a s i l y you s w i t c h t a s k s . 41 P l e a s e do not b e g i n c o u n t i n g or w r i t i n g or t u r n the next page u n t i l I t e l l you the time i s u p ; j u s t c o n c e n t r a t e on the  task at hand u n t i l the end of the t ime p e r i o d . 

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.831.1-0095078/manifest

Comment

Related Items