Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The functions of pictures and repetition in children’s oral prose learning Hill, Linda 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 H54.pdf [ 2.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095088.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095088-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095088-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095088-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095088-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095088-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095088-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095088-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095088.ris

Full Text

THE  FUNCTIONS OF.PICTURES.AND REPETITION IN CHILDREN'S ORAL PROSE LEARNING by LINDA  HILL  B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , 1 9 7 7  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS MASTER  FOR THE DEGREE OF OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Human L e a r n i n g , Department  Development  of E d u c a t i o n a l  We a c c e p t  and I n s t r u c t i o n Program,  Psychology  this  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  THE  and S p e c i a l  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH  COLUMBIA  February,1982  (c)  Linda  H i l l , 1982  Education)  In  presenting  requirements  this thesis  British  it  freely available  for  f u l f i l m e n t of the  f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y  of  agree that  in partial  Columbia,  I agree  f o r reference  permission  scholarly  that  the L i b r a r y  shall  and s t u d y .  I  f o r extensive  p u r p o s e s may  for  that  shall  Department o f  Date  r\r  a  i  T  /na  \  of this  Itis thesis  n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  thesis  be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  f i n a n c i a l gain  further  copying of t h i s  d e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . understood  make  Columbia  written  ii  Abstract The the in  e f f e c t s of u s i n g  oral  prose  learning  a multi-variate  study  was  to  of  recall the the  experiment.  whether  presented  between p i c t u r e s  aids  story  recall  have  facilitate investigated  purpose  of  the  and r e p e t i t i o n have  functions  material.  It  in was  aiding  the  argued  that  and r e p e t i t i o n on p a r a p h r a s e d would  support  the  cued  hypothesis  that  a r e h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d , w h i l e main e f f e c t s on  d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s would  aids  The  pictures  r e l a t e d or independent  and f r e e  two  factorial  orally  interactions  and r e p e t i t i o n t o  o f g r a d e " o n e c h i l d r e n was  determine  hierarchically recall  pictures  independent  support  functions  the h y p o t h e s i s  in  that  facilitating  t h e two  oral  prose  learning. A  main  effect  of p i c t u r e s  f o u n d . No e f f e c t s o f p i c t u r e s .order only,  of r e c a l l there  utterances The that  was  a  and  answering  oral  weak e v i d e n c e  repetition prose  facilitated  methodological  and  recall.  In  the s t o r i e s during  have  learning.  of p a r a p h r a s e d q u e s t i o n s  effect,  discussed.  story  was  serial  one  school  main e f f e c t o f r e p e t i t i o n on t h e l e n g t h of  r e s u l t s provide  pictures  recall  o r r e p e t i t i o n were f o u n d on  free  u s e d when r e t e l l i n g  facilitating  an  or semantic  on p a r a p h r a s e d c u e d  Pictures  recall.  the h y p o t h e s i s  independent  while  syntactic  educational  supporting  free  functions  facilitated  r e p e t i t i o n , when  complexity.  implications  in the  i t had  Theoretical,  of the study  were  TABLE OF CONTENTS  INTRODUCTION  .....  ....  .  ........  LITERATURE REVIEW  4  M o d e l s Of C o g n i t i v e Oral  Processing  5  Prose Learning  Pictures  ., •  Recall  8  Versus  9  Repetition  Measures  Summary  8 8  Repetition Pictures  1  12  ...  14  METHOD  16  Subjects  16  Design  17  And M a t e r i a l s  Factors  17  Stories  17  Recall  Measures  Procedure  18 '  RESULTS  19 20  Paraphrased Semantic Syntactic Serial  •  Cued R e c a l l  Recall Recall  Order  Of R e c a l l  DISCUSSION Theoretical  20 21 22 23 25  Implications  25  iv  Methodological Educational  Limitations  29  Implications  30  FOOTNOTES  ........  32  REFERENCE NOTES  33  REFERENCE L I S T  34  APPENDICES A. F r e e  .. Story  . .'. Recall  38 Instructions  38  B. I n s t r u c t i o n s To S u b j e c t s C. C o r r e l a t i o n s Of Dependent  39 Variables  ••••  4  1  V  L I S T OF TABLES  Table 1. P a r a p h r a s e d  Cued R e c a l l :  A n s w e r s As A F u n c t i o n 2.  Semantic Recalled  Recall:  Mean  Of I n s t r u c t i o n a l  Of I n s t r u c t i o n a l  3. Mean L e n g t h Of U t t e r a n c e :  4. S e r i a l of  Of  Correct  Condition  Mean Number Of I n f o r m a t i o n  As A F u n c t i o n  Instructional  Number  21  Units  Condition  Mean MLU As A F u n c t i o n  .... Of  Condition  O r d e r Of R e c a l l :  Instructional  22  23 Mean S c o r e s  Condition  As  A  Function 24  1  Introduct ion Since presented  much o f s c h o o l information,  facilitating describe  the  oral  improve  recall  (see L e v i n  Similarly,  once  (e.g. Levin, There  are and  Bender three  instructional  The in  Levin  They  helpful the  who  listen  better  listen  & Lesgold,1976; ways  without  reviews).  t o r e p e t i t i o n s of o r a l simply  Petros that  pictures  have  to  subsequent  for  hear  the  and  passages  & Hoving  c a n be r e l a t e d . F i r s t ,  may  shown  to passages  on  Levin,1979  or l i s t e n  Second,  such  to passages  related functions. Third,  support  ,1980).  functions  of  these a i d s  may  repetition  may  t h e two k i n d s o f  independent  functions  in  recall.  first  possibility  et al.,1976;  have  who  possible  of  have b o t h been  t h a n c h i l d r e n who  repetition  hierarchically  facilitating  repeat  recall  have t h e same f u n c t i o n . serve  Children  Lesgold,1978;  c h i l d r e n who  show g r e a t e r  pictures  &  ways of  and t h e use o f r e p e t i t i o n  of i n f o r m a t i o n  children  effective  functions  p i c t u r e s perform  than  orally  l e a r n i n g and t o a t t e m p t t o  pictures  recall.  by r e l e v a n t  prose  remembering  to find  cognitive  of  presentation  measures  pictures  prose  use  children's  accompanied  oral  underlying The  involves  i t i s important  children's  facilitation. during  learning  information  suggested  by R e s n i c k  L e v i n , 1 9 7 9 ) and Brody and L e g e n z a  hypothesized  i s simply  has been  that  the reason  pictures  b e c a u s e p i c t u r e s prompt c h i l d r e n  just  given.  (cited (1980).  i n prose are to  rehearse  2  Recent  research  provides  evidence  effects  of  help  in  pictures  has  pictures Levin  Bender been  and  is  model of  and  have  repetition  of  is  repetition aids can  the  both  aids  recall  than r e p e t i t i o n  Levin  information. (1972)  are  ,1977).  the  This  functions  of and  s o m e t h i n g more  Their  hypothesis  depth-of-processing  aid  that  process  is  the  if  *two  aids  process explanation of  oral  prose  s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t than  theoretically two  and  practically  hypotheses about o r a l prose  how  a  to  pictures  learning.  to as  function Ruch  and  at  and  If  the  d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of  Levin  (1977)  a h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p would  to maximally  functions  facilitating  repetition  h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d then, t h e o r e t i c a l l y ,  provided the  both  considered  cognitive  p i c t u r e s and  information.  in f a c i l i t a t i n g  in fact  be  in  p i c t u r e s provide  verbal  function  i s that  functions  between t h e s e  Educationally, the  the  cued  pictures provide  verbal  hypothesis  important  distinguish  single  on  performance  Lockhart's  independent Possibly  they  While  for  h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d . Ruch  that  r e p e t i t i o n of Craik  conditions  i n d i c a t i n g that  are  hypothesis  to account  recall.  & L e s g o l d , 1 9 7 6 ; Ruch &  i n t e r p r e t e d as  learning.  two  control  r e s u l t in better  alternative  It  sufficient  rehearsal  memory.  An may  to  (1977) have s u g g e s t e d  b a s e d on  simple  r e p e t i t i o n on  repetition  than a simple  this  i t i s not and  comparison  Levin,  finding  that  pictures  measures, (e.g.  examining  most  facilitative  facilitate  have  independent  would not  p i c t u r e s and  oral*prose  that  (pictures)  functions,  Instead,  the a  only  need  be  However,  then a  adequately describe  repetition.  suggest.  imply  learning.  a  single  underlying  model  which  3  p o s t u l a t e s more t h a n  one  consider  different  nominally  processing  s y s t e m may  functions  Paivio,.1 97 1 ) . From an  independent  f u n c t i o n s would mean t h a t when orally,  together  should  In  cued  be  recall. than  other  pictures.  repetition  support in  have  providing  different  or  more  if pictures  different  hypothesis are  type  of  to  each  treatment of  hierarchically  never and  t o d e t e r m i n e whether  oral  as  prose  The  patterns  two  of  functions  related  has  with  the  pictures  Ruch and have  of  using  pictures  Levin  nominally  learning.  on  the  more  kinds  other,  factorially  that  t o be  two  were compared  the  compared  than  these  repetition  task.  the  effective  the  recall  which  there  of  effects  of  task,  hypotheses,  a cued  the  found  functions  and  alone. i t i s not  r  on  two  p r e d i c t i o n s about  The  repetition  between  been  repetition,  in f a c i l i t a t i n g  repetition and  than  i s being  been  i s more  i s impossible related  task  have  instructional the  view,  repetition  to d a t e  of  particular  l o o k i n g at it  differentiate  task  have  effects  a combined  and  &  hypotheses because  repetition  this  the  ordinally  functions  p i c t u r e s and  occur.  kind  have been compared  something  (1977) s u g g e s t ,  on  while  combined  aids  recall  only  f o r which r e p e t i t i o n  Second,  together  To  two  pictures  repetition  been e x a m i n e d . W i t h o u t  two  the  While  tasks  instructional them  First,  information  research  these  of p r o v i d i n g p i c t u r e s or  effective may  between  of  providing pictures  of  to  Kirby  point  pictures  than  results  to d i s t i n g u i s h  limitations.  effects is  the  Das,  educational  both  more,helpful  examining  possible two  be  providing  better able  (e.g.  Jarman,l979;  presented  be  effects both  hypotheses  a  free  l e d to  recall  that  of  pictures  l e d to the  of  would and  p r e d i c t i o n that  4  since.pictures  provide  s o m e t h i n g more t h a n  repetition,  two a i d s t o g e t h e r  would be r e d u n d a n t . T h e r e f o r e , an  between  factors,  the  two  such  be subsumed under the p i c t u r e other the  words,  recall  as u s i n g p i c t u r e s  measures.  have  independent  led  to  the  different  repetition  alone  that  repetition,  main  on b o t h  than  effects  of  t a s k s were  this  section  f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s  will  be d e v e l o p e d .  First,  m o d e l s of c o g n i t i o n w i l l these  models  dealing  with  repetition cued  will  and  and  provide  provide  something would  instead  in oral  and  context pictures  prose  learning.  free  story  be d i s c u s s e d .  aids  learning  f o r the present  presented a  free  t h e two  main  representative single be  have  be  of  an  effects  of  expected.  and r e p e t i t i o n  t h e f u n c t i o n s of  in oral  recall  learning  will  should  Review  t h e framework  the  and  In  prose  Therefore,  pictures  would  occur.  u s i n g t h e two a i d s t o g e t h e r  Literature  In  to  cued  oral  since pictures  redundant.  recall  effect  together  on b o t h  functions in f a c i l i t a t i n g  rather  interaction,  expected  In c o n t r a s t , t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t  prediction  than  additive  was  u s i n g p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n  same e f f e c t  interaction  that the r e p e t i t i o n  effect  u s i n g the  recall  prose  and d u a l  on  learning process  compared.  Second,  for reviewing  research  and  Third,  experiment  the  functions  t h e use of  as measures  of  paraphrased  of o r a l  prose  5  M o d e l s of  Cognitive  While  Processing  there  are  there  almost  processing  as  categories.  Single process  hierarchically postulate  two  Two  approach  is  level  Two coding  model  describe  are  While  defined  methodology,  Paivio  (1976)  approaches are  very  or  simultaneous  processing. gestalt  The  •similar  to  while  temporal  the  single  suggested  abstract  level  t o be  a  f u n c t i o n of  approach are  et  Paivio's  and  although  out  synthesizing latter The  Kirby  models  and that  or  to  process  in that  they  the  and  Das  research the  two  parallel successive  information  refers  dual  i n how  between  sequential  Both  cognitive  differences  pointed  and  dual  a_l. ( 1 9 7 5 , 1 9 7 9 ) .  Both d i s t i n g u i s h  process  the  successive  complementary are  has  order.  that  hierarchically  (1975) d e f i n i t i o n s  the  encoding  l e a r n i n g to deeper  but  r e f e r s to  of  sensory  Das  processing  former  fashion,  information•in  similar.  models  of  i n e a c h model, and Paivio's  stages  simultaneous  there  (1976) have c r i t i c i z e d  one  processed.  by  separate  systems.  constructs  is  is  information.  s e r i e s of  i s viewed  the  described two  rote  process  (1971,1975), and model  processing  dual  a  two  process  is  surface  information the  it  from  Retention  examples of  processing models  the  the  a  of  there  into  depth-of-processing  through  a level  that dual  and  cognitive  sorted  the  In b o t h m o d e l s  progressing  levels.  to which  are  of  be  for processing  Lockhart,1972),  through  semantic  and  models  processed  levels  perception and  systems  process &  models  propose  system  (Anderson,1972).  information arranged  models  independent  (Craik  many  t h e o r i z e r s , most can  organized  single  framework  are  as  in  a  processing models  are  describe  a  6  hierarchy  of  levels  different  from  themselves  are  rather this  than  the seen  being  approach  affected  each  single  process  to  function  is  that by  it  the  distinctions  m o d e l s w h i c h a r e of  in  the  how  repetition process  two and  models p i c t u r e s  hierarchically processing process than  which  is  o t h e r more  to  models the  facilitate  different  are  Repetition, involves consisting  two  two  levels  repetition  as  of  seen  being  of  (e.g.  e t . al.,1979;  The  two  involve  of  be  single  to  systems  a  learning (e.g.  In t h e  dual  are  seen  rather  than and  separate  ways.  probably  mainly  processing.  or  rote  words p i c t u r e s  in  be  deeper  as  support  sequential,  simultaneous  to  strategies  In o t h e r  are  In t h e  of p i c t u r e s .  perceived  dual  study  facilitating  learning  be  and  verbal  viewed  coding  sequential  Pictures,  in a gestalt parallel  manner,  processing  Paivio,1971).  approaches  to  compared  in verbal learning  items  used.  are  of  of  leading  processing  and  images w h i c h can  mainly  Das  aid  or  can  considered  instructional  same s y s t e m .  verbal  probably  learning.  is  the p r o v i s i o n  to  successive  functions  are  way  semantic  different  process  pictures  helpful  k i n d s of  the  that retention  the  Repetition  less  such  view  with  meaningful  Anderson,1972) process  a  other  aspect  t o the p r e s e n t  repetition  repetition.  systems  each  important  single  in f a c i l i t a t i n g  related  than  the  importance  and  of  are  systems.  approaches  pictures  they  i n t h a t the  An  assumed  between  process  However,  models  related.  is  two  system.  independently  hierarchically  additively  The  within  Which model  cognitive research  processing  i n which  i s supported  lists  appears  to  have of  been  discrete  depend  on  7  the  experimental  experiments because  tend  few  pictorial  paradigm to  u s e d . The  favor  a  differences  or  verbal  r e s u l t s of. p a i r e d  single  process  between  the  elaborations  R e e s e , 1 9 7 7 ; Rohwer,l973  elaboration  been  found  the  generally  detrimental  learned.  (e.g.  activity the  than  two  items  The  evidence  be  a  kinds  best  of  been  found  for  much  more  (see because  effective  strategy &  of  is  either  r e v i e w s ) and  Schnorr  In c o n t r a s t  recall  There  independently  (see  is also of  of  be  list  study  repeating  Atkinson,1969;  learning  interpreted  to paired  been d e m o n s t r a t e d  serial  reviews).  other can  framework.  and  recall  of  that  consistently  free for  be  results  process has  to  to  This  Barker,1971).  Yarmey &  found  has  model.  provision  have  Pressley,1977;  associate  that  within  associate  semantic  have  a  dual  findings i t  r e p e t i t i o n in fact  Nelson,1977; O r n s t e i n  evidence  studies  that  & Naus,l978  repetition  elaborative  aids  facilitates  strategies  (Maki  &  Schuller,1980). The list  main d i f f e r e n c e  learning  paradigms  recall.  Paired  kinds  list  well  of as  cued  than the  one  recall.  task  e f f e c t s of  learning.  i s i n the  associate  learning  which dependent  between  variable  different  the  use  type  of  free  associate  task  recall kinds  used  cued  and  r e s u l t s seem t o  i s used,  t o measure  paired  e x p e r i m e n t s use  studies  Since  the  and  to  recall  serial vary  i t seems i m p o r t a n t  measure and  instructional  other  recall  as  according to  use  when t e s t i n g h y p o t h e s e s of  other  to  more about  support  on  8  Oral  Prose Learning Recently,  verbal  learning  investigate  the e f f e c t s  in  from c o n n e c t e d d i s c o u r s e .  learning  and  researchers  simply  to' demonstrate  Ausubel  & Y o u s e f , l 9 6 5 ) and  Guttman,1975;  describe  Pictures.  Accompanying  pictures  children's  has  Fleming,1979; reviews).  Significant  children  of v a r i o u s  (Dunham  &  grade  (  Guttman,1975; (Purkel  ages  Levin,1980; Guttman  et  Levin  Levin,1979;  &  ,  been by  effects  Bender  & Bornstein,1979;  Guttman  to  cued  recall  Levin,  are  (Lesgold  used  Repetition. prose  have  literature  Shimron  &  third  grade  fourth  grade  al.,1975),  Rohwer & H a r r i s , 1 975') . The the f r e e  are used  kindergarten  et  & B e r r y , 1980;  stories  found w i t h  grade  (Levin  when s h o r t  (see  second  & C o l t h e a r t , 1 9 7 9 ) , and  found to f a c i l i t a t e  improve  Lesgold,1976),  Rustead  children  in  with  Pressley,1977  have been  & Levin,1977;  been  to  ( e . g . Brody  shown  (Ruch  has  made  & Pressley,1977), f i r s t  Lesgold, &  &  Ruch & L e v i n , 1 9 7 7 ) .  students  Levin  al.,1977;  been  presented information  including Guttman  (e.g.  H a r r i s , 1 9 7 5 ) as  Lesgold,1978;  positive  was  Shimron  in prose r e c a l l  measured  Levin,1979; Levin  aim  of r e p e t i t i o n  &  to  repetition  the  a t t e m p t s have  orally  as  and  first  Rohwer  consistently  learning  begun  (Lesgold, Levin,  of t h e s e a i d s  Duchastel,1980,  At  effects  al.,1976;  a i d s . More r e c e n t l y ,  & Legenza,1981;  for  et  the f u n c t i o n s  relevant  pictures  of p i c t u r e s 1  the p o s i t i v e  Levin,  instructional  functions  have  story  use  recall  but not when  of  pictures  of grade long  two  stories  et a l . , 1 9 7 6 ) . The  received  effects  limited  available  on  of  repetition  on  learning  interest  in comparison  t o the  the e f f e c t s  of r e p e t i t i o n  and  from large  rehearsal  9  on  learning  because  paired  much  associates  of  the  oriented.  the  connection  with  A n d e r s o n , 1 9 7 2 ) and  kinds  of  been  done  between so  lists.  educators  repetition  there  is  more  s t r a t e g i e s . However, the  demonstrate  that  This  meaningful  I t seems t h a t  (e.g.  learning  serial  research  educationally assumed  and  have  is  accepted  rote  interest  learning in  studies  r e p e t i t i o n , does  be  material  and  few  may  other  that  have  facilitate  prose  learning. Significant repetition adults  positive  on  (e.g.  both  the  free  While  recall  covert  affect  the  (Dunham  cued  grade  rehearsal  Levin  recall  of  two  has  simply  kindergarten  age  or  o r a l prose  of  aids  be  two  found  (Petros not  c h i l d r e n on recall  that  overt  covert  found  with  & Grey,1972; King  been  have  and  to  &  facilitate  & Hoving,1980). been  found  e i t h e r cued  to  recall  ( T r a v i s & White,1979), repetition  facilitated  group.  recall.  The  that  literature  b o t h p i c t u r e s and  Attempts  specifically  reviewed  to describe  comparing  their  the  to  this  repetition functions  effects will  now  discussed. Levin  one  by  also  free  demonstrated  facilitate the  have been  children  P i c t u r e s Versus R e p e t i t i o n . point  recall  instructions  (1980) f o u n d  in this  overt  free  r e p e t i t i o n has  Levin,1980)  Dunham and  and  of . b o t h  & Yousef,l965; DiVesta  of  recall  &  cued  Ausubel  Cotton,1969). Overt  effects  et. a l . (1976) f o u n d  children's  verbatim  cued  repetition. children,  recall  in  recall,  Ruch and  while  comparison pictures  Levin  p i c t u r e s and  that  to  both a i d s a  were  more  (1977) f o u n d  that,  r e p e t i t i o n both  helped  control  group  facilitative for  facilitated  grade the  grade on than three  answering  10  of  verbatim  cued  paraphrased children the  recall  cued  recall.  Bender and  answering  of  Levin  was  on  measure.  pictures  and  not  instructions  with  on  the  Silvern  kindergarten  Levin  when c o m p a r i n g rehearsal"  proposed with argued  a  pictures that  exposure resulting pictures  in are  organizational deeply pictures  patterns  Levin  et  p i c t u r e s to  represent ion,  pictures  retarded  facilitated  questions  than c o n t r o l (1979)  while  conditions  reported  that  than  imagery  instructions  or  control  no  recall  of  kindergarten  significant  differences  repetition  condition,  cued  measure  recall  performance  f o u n d by  a l . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , and  Ruch and  is  not  prose.  Instead  something  is  helpful  surface  better  sufficient  and  in a  a  study  context  more  i n which  More several  the  recently functions  organization,  "simple for  the  hierarchically  related  that  because  repetition.  They  provides  more  it of  the  passage,  encoding.  However,  they  information Levin  a  (1977)  characteristics  helpful  (1977)  Levin  phonological-acoustic  even  and  and  Levin  account  more t h a n in  Bender  that  to  Ruch  r e p e t i t i o n are  providing  the  of  repetition indicate  p i c t u r e s and  processed. have  mentally  children.  rehearsal to  facilitated  more e f f e c t i v e  cued  condition,  p i c t u r e s on  that  that  Levin  found  hypothesis  of  with  better  rehearsal  a verbatim  pictures  paraphrased  and  verbatim  on  different  (1976),  effects  and  (1980)  condition  The  (1978) f o u n d  Dunham  only  study  significantly  covert  between a p i c t u r e control  a  r e p e t i t i o n were e q u a l l y  instructions,  children.  In  both verbatim  repetition either  q u e s t i o n s , but  (1979)  including:  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and  provide can  be  proposed  an more that  reiteration, transformation  11  of  i n f o r m a t i o n . Within, t h i s  function  of p i c t u r e s  list  i s viewed  other  functions  mentioned.  these  functions  are  considered prose  to  be  learning.  subsume v e r b a l and  as b e i n g  unique  to  less  activities  pictures  strategies  In  more  such  as  essence,  rather  but  than  that  are a l s o  Levin's  none of are  children's  considered  question  (1979)  to  answering  taxonomy  seen  something  the  instead  for improving  repetition.,  than  repetition)  useful  i n which p i c t u r e s are  than,  (or  (1979) a s s e r t s  These g e n e r a l s t r a t e g i e s  process approach  something  reiteration  Levin  general  paraphrasing.  single  the  to  is a  provide  different  from  repetition. An  alternate  the d i f f e r e n t repetition aids  functions  cued  recall  independent in  repetition actually  p a t t e r n s of p e r f o r m a n c e  on  serve  hypothesis explaining  occur  rather  facilitating  i s not" s i m p l y facilitative  less in  these  found  because than  oral  findings  is  between p i c t u r e s the  two  facilitative  some d i f f e r e n t  related  learning. than but  and  instructional  hierarchically prose  that  Possibly  pictures equally  but  is  important  ways. These h y p o t h e s e s pictures learning to  date.  examining and  and  repetition  because To  b o t h can  the e f f e c t s on  plausible  function account  discriminate  in combination  needed.  are both  retrieval  facilitating  f o r the  between  of p i c t u r e s  in  the  and  explanations  findings  two  oral  of  used  t a s k s o t h e r than cued  how prose  research  hypotheses,  repetition  of  research  both  alone  recall  is  12  Recall  Measures  There  a r e two  t h e y a r e seldom exceptions  common methods o f m e a s u r i n g  both used  (e.g.  in  the  Lesgold,  same  DeGood  H a r r i s , 1 9 7 5 ) t h e t e n d e n c y has been (e.g. free  Lesgold, story  recall  Johnson,1977; cued or  recall  a  studies  in  Levin  as c u e d  recall  when c o m p a r i n g  were  repetition  recall  &  & White,1979).  In  recall)  about  recall  can a b o u t  two  effects  variable  ( e . g . Bender  Bender  the  the  the  subject  previously  was  produced  only  of  have o n l y  Ruch &  to e l i c i t  in their  the cued  and  free  recall recall  on  free  to  occur  story  measures t h a t and  free  in r e c a l l  of q u e s t i o n s w h i c h  when  as  because  results  repetition  were  patterns on in  pictures  cued recall and  recall.  were used  story  cued  recall  s t u d y but  ( e . g . Ruch & L e v i n , 1 9 7 7 ) . D i f f e r e n c e s expected  used  to  Levin,1977).  recall  found d i f f e r e n c e s of p i c t u r e s  pictures  & L e v i n , 1 9 7 8 ; Dunham  & Lesgold,1976;  from t h e c h i l d r e n  also  cued  consists  the  prose l e a r n i n g  were compared  paraphrased recall  s/he  story  &  Mandler  questions  oral  the e f f e c t s  measures  The  In f r e e  e_t §_1 . (1976) a t t e m p t e d  effect  patterns  cued  1979;  Travis  recall)  comparing  a n a l y z e d . ) R e s e a r c h e r s have  recall  Rohwer  S i I v e r n , 1 980)., o r  Mulcahy,  Hoving,l980;  everything  aiding  as a d e p e n d e n t  floor  &  ( p a r a p h r a s e d cued  & Levin,1980; L e v i n ,  well  either  few  material.  repetition  fact,  Levin,1977;  use  but  very  i s asked v e r b a t i m ( v e r b a t i m cued  to r e c a l l  Previous  (In  Cummins &  With  & Guttman , 1 975;  presented material.  instructed  recall  (e.g.  Petros  paraphrased  presented  Shimron  the subject  previously is  Levin,  study. &  to  prose r e c a l l  recall.  are r e l a t e d  in this  study are  Paraphrased to the  cued  originally  13  presented actual the  m a t e r i a l i n meaning b u t u n r e l a t e d with' r e s p e c t t o t h e  words u s e d .  sentences  substantive  in  the  the q u e s t i o n s  study  words i n common.  paradigmatic) rather  Although  than  material,  Instead  verbatim  cued  recall,  t h e same words a s were used  an  attempt  single  to  process  is  very  as  free  theorist deeper be  task  more  because  asked  material, partly in  difficult  perspectives  and t h e o r e t i c a l l y  paraphrased  a n d so a v o i d a  researchers favoring  on  the  more i n t e r e s t i n g  cued  recall  t o measure l e a r n i n g kinds of p r o c e d u r e s .  paradigmatic  task while  demands.  Single process  and f r e e  process  task  from  story  oral  than  Paraphrased  free  story  and s e r i a l  recall.  According  processing  successfully  than  paraphrased  free  completed  while  i t  completed  however, no e v i d e n c e  recall  recall  recall  'i s a  o r d e r i n g as w e l l  if is  through  the  recall  one s i n g l e  process  recall  requires  t h e former  can only  stimulus  possible  material  that the l a t t e r  r o t e memory s t r a t e g i e s .  supporting this  theorists  cued  cued  because  they  cued  and d u a l p r o c e s s  to at least  recall  prose,  v i e w s on t h e demands o f p a r a p h r a s e d  (Anderson,1972),  successfully  questions  recall.  story  comprehended,  of l e x i c a l (or  to  have d i f f e r e n t and  i n the study  t a s k w h i c h has s y n t a c t i c ,  lexical  consist  t a s k s a s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w . In s h o r t , i t was f e l t  different  sequential  do n o t have any  of  both  a lexical  of  demands  t a s k s have been used are  they  i n which the  and p a r t l y  different  cued  While  the  effect,  a more d i f f i c u l t  verbatim  they  frameworks and r e s e a r c h e r s f a v o r i n g d u a l  have  paradigmatic be  make  ceiling  models  t h e meaning  a s s o c i a t i o n s ( A n d e r s o n , 1 9 7 2 ) . T h i s t a s k was c h o s e n  use  possible  convey  suggestion.  In  was  c o u l d be There i s ,  fact,  free  .14.  story  recall  especially is  required While  free  story  learning,  to  recall  other  adequately  Travis  to  sentences  measure  and o r g a n i z e  found  recall,  the, s u b j e c t  recall  without  of  using  children's  oral  prose  that although  free  recall  are able to perform  enough t o measure d i f f e r e n c e s &  cued  the v a l i d i t y  young  r e s e a r c h e r s have  ( e . g . Mandler  than  (A.Brown,1975) b e c a u s e  most young c h i l d r e n  this  i n performance  Johnson,1977;  Stein  &  task  between  Glenn,1977;  & White,1979).  According tasks  mainly  syntactic,  Several  t o the dual p r o c e s s involve p a r a l l e l  sequential  successive  tasks  processing  (1978)  paradigmatic Cummins  and  found  lexical,  or simultaneous mainly  Jarman  (1980) have  Cummins  and  that s y n t a c t i c a l  with  are  while  sequential Das  this  found  a  Mulcahy  tasks  for  paradigmatic  processing  involve  e m p i r i c a l support  tasks are correlated  (1978),  models,  ( Pa i v i o , 1 97 1 , 1 975 ;  studies provide  Cummins  have  produce  task  L e v i n e_t a_l. (1976) q u e s t i o n  difficult,  subjects  a more d i f f i c u l t  f o r young c h i l d r e n  cues.  is  i s actually  that  e_t  a l . , 1 979 ) .  suggestion. l e x i c a l and  simultaneous  factor.  (1979) and Jarman related  or  to  (1980)  successive  processing.  Summary In  summary,  pictures learning. which model  and The  i s based of  a r e two p l a u s i b l e  repetition  function  hypothesis on C r a i k and  memory,  hierarchically  there  suggests  related  proposed  to by  Lockhart's  hypotheses  facilitate  about  oral  prose  Ruch and L e v i n (1972)  that p i c t u r e s  single  (1977), process  and r e p e t i t i o n  functions. This implies that  any  how  serve effect  1 5  repetition  has on o r a l  facilitative which  functions  i s b a s e d on d u a l  (e.g. of  prose  pictures  In  research  oral  both p i c t u r e s instructional  effects  of the  pictures  two  has  cognitive  support  than  within  as  indicating  that  something  be  The effects  on  information repetition  to  Further,  If  recall  effective  a r e more  t h e two a i d s  of  T h i s has framework  more  i s that  than  pictures  I f so a d u a l  interpretation  predictions  t h a n can  about  pictures,  when  functions  to t h i s  facilitative  the  repetition,  presenting of  then p i c t u r e  be s m a l l e r  together  be  of  form  process  by  than  and  repetition  cued  first that  oral  pictures  on b o t h p a r a p h r a s e d  f o u n d would  because p i c t u r e s using  aids  measures. A c c o r d i n g  effects  to  provision  repetition.  of u s i n g  the  found  prose  model..  related  would be p r e d i c t e d  repetition  effects  two  oral  something  to d i f f e r e n t  the  children.  than  and  ways..  of r e p e t i t i o n .  a better  recall  the  hypothesis  process  lead  of  more  provide  are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y  interactions free  a  pictures  a single  other  which have compared t h e  continuous  c u e d and f r e e  combination  been  a single,  different  two h y p o t h e s e s  have  the p r o v i s i o n  framework would p r o v i d e  described within  a  to  from e a c h  recall,  However, an a l t e r n a t i v e  provide  process  cued  the f u n c t i o n s  facilitating  In s t u d i e s  on  processing,  in different  of  and r e p e t i t i o n  found  interpreted  any  hypothesis,  learning  ways  aids.  been  repetition.  prose  aids  been  instructional  and  The a l t e r n a t i v e  are independent  examining  useful  or  i n t h e more  p r o c e s s m o d e l s of  and r e p e t i t i o n  facilitate  learning,  be  of p i c t u r e s .  i s encompassed  Das e t aT.,1979; P a i v i o , 1 9 7 l ) p r o p o s e s t h a t  therefore  may  learning  recall  hypothesis,  any  pictorial  repetition.  would n o t be e x p e c t e d  t o be  16  any  more e f f e c t i v e  than  interactions  such  more p o w e r f u l  picture  that  however, p i c t u r e s  then  using pictures  to mainly  as  tapped  those  information be  complexity  in free  make  independent  using  both a i d s  than  using  cued  The  and  use  of  Further, i f pictures  t o g e t h e r would be aid  are p r e d i c t e d  is  useful  serial  to  by  this  to determine  way  oral  in f a c i l i t a t i n g  oral  result would  the  main  such  repetition  learning,  then  effective  effects  w h i c h of t h e s e  would  syntactic  and  The  be  semantic  t o be more  hypothesis.  prose  to  and  prose  Thus  to d e s c r i b e the  functions  repetition  order  expected  alone.  the  a s p e c t s of r e c a l l  recall.  contributions  of  hypothesis.  of p i c t u r e s  recall  recall.  part  expected  use  the l e x i c a l  form  reasons,  independent  would be The  these  this  affect  s t u d y was  repetition  have  by  mainly  the p r e s e n t t h e most  repetition  main e f f e c t s .  either  interactions  repetition  in free  effects  are p r e d i c t e d  by p a r a p h r a s e d  to  a l o n e . For  repetition  facilitate  recalled  expected  and  and  separate additive  expected  the  effects  If,  in  using pictures  and  no  purpose  of  two  hypotheses  f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s  and  learning.  Method  Subjects The school  study  was  conducted  with  i n a s m a l l town on V a n c o u v e r  replicated  with  community  on  32  grade  Vancouver  t h e r e were s e v e r a l  grade  one  grade  Island,  children  Island, one  32  B.  children  from C. who  one B.C.  children (School  a school in  from 1),  a  a  and  rural  ( S c h o o l 2 ) . In S c h o o l 1 spoke  English  as  a  17  second  language,  children  who  from  the  and  spoke  several  English  as a s e c o n d  s t u d y . The n a t i v e  age  group  was c h o s e n  use  imagery  the  effects  repetition  with  confounded children  Design  ' of  of  and  provided,  b)  Pictures  and r e p e t i t i o n  two  a)  t o measure  pictures  and  not  be  strategies.  The  conditions.  were o r t h o g o n a l f a c t o r s , i n  2)  repetition  pictures  and  1)  no  provided,  a)  The  t r e a t m e n t s were examined  pictures  four  resulting  no  repetition  provided,  initial  t h e s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t ,  instructional  b)  two  repetition  pictures  Since  were  no  pictures, 3)  combined.  There  provided,  repetition:  provided.  were  repetition  design.  pictures of  repetition  control,  indicated  no  levels  conditions  4)  analyses  t h e e f f e c t s of  separately  within  school. Stories.  Two  developed  a female  this  learning  would  covert  multi-variate  instructional  There  prose  assigned to the experimental  pictures:  provided,  by  This  do n o t s p o n t a n e o u s l y  results  generated  excluded  included.  manipulating  the  The  and M a t e r i a l s  levels  were  that  subject  a c o m p l e t e l y randomized  each  were  and so i t seemed p o s s i b l e  assurance  were randomly  were  facilitate  experimentally  with  Factors.  these  to  children.  language  young c h i l d r e n  repetition  ( e . g . Dunham & L e v i n , 1 9 8 0 ) ,  Indian  Indian children  because  or c o v e r t  native  narrative  by Guttman  speaker  the  of t e n s e n t e n c e s e a c h  which  (Guttman,1975) were p r e s e n t e d on  at the rate  was a t e n s e c o n d pause  passages  pause  tape  of one s e n t e n c e p e r t e n s e c o n d s .  following  appropriate  each  sentence.  instructional  During  treatment  was  18  administered. Repetition sentence.  subjects Picture  sentence. viewed  Control  sentence.  The  for  each  story  Each  child  learning:  paraphrased questions  There  was  asked  for  free  developed tell  by T r a v i s  because  Bullock  absent  complete  puppet  recall  two and  had  been  which  presentation  methods u s e d free  story  consisted Levin  of  t o measure  recall.  two  sets  The  of  (1977) i n a c c o r d a n c e  each in  paraphrase story.  one  same t e m p o r a l  t a s k was  the  o r d e r as  ten with  questions.  Each  of  White  was  a variation  question sentences.  the  sentences  remember about varied  by  1) s u g g e s t s  the  of  the  procedure  (1979) i n w h i c h s u b j e c t s a r e the  story  " a s l e e p " i n an  story.  u s i n g a puppet  u s i n g a puppet  i n young c h i l d r e n . to t e l l  drawings  story  during story p r e s e n t a t i o n in order  were a s k e d who  (Note  line  previous  story.  recall  (1979) p r o c e d u r e  the  are  o r d e r of  presented  e v e r y t h i n g t h e y can  White's  study  recall  i n the  and  of  condition  sentence.  for constructing  i n the  story  instructional  c o r r e s p o n d i n g to each  s e t of q u e s t i o n s f o r  were a s k e d  previous  pictures  were  Ruch and  information  the  ten  The  task  rules  been p r e s e n t e d The  cued  by  of t h e p r e v i o u s  of  There  pause.  subjects.  recall  (1972) one  Questions  is  cued  developed  Anderson's  to  picture  There  paraphrased  picture  (1975).  stories.  Measures.  a  were c o l o r e d  by Guttman  both  unfilled  to a r e p e t i t i o n  used  w i t h one  an  a repetition  combined  listened  counterbalanced across Recall  to  the  pictures  developed  had  in  and  heard  received  s u b j e c t s viewed  were a l s o  was  listened  Subjects  a.picture  subjects  The  they  to  had  attempt  Travis as a  just  and prop  or a d o l l  encourage  children  asked  who more  i n the p r e s e n t heard  to encourage  to  a  detailed  19  recall  rather  Each each  than  child,  story.  j u s t , a summary o f t h e s t o r y received  The o r d e r  both  recall  of measurement  (see Appendix A ) .  m e a s u r e s , one measure f o r  was c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d  across  subjects.  Procedure Children school.  Children  repetition twice,  were t e s t e d were g i v e n  subjects  and p i c t u r e  pictures  that  the  manner first  story,  with  story  to  task  the second  was  story.  administered. (see Appendix  later  transcribed  do t h e p r a c t i c e two child  children  Following  and r e c a l l  recall  task  B). Free  this  story  for scoring.  were  was  heard  or p a r a p h r a s e d "story"  story  tasks  recall  Two  children  (one c h i l d  interrupted  from  during  s c h o o l ) were r e p l a c e d  was  free  by o t h e r  to  the  and  in  i n . Then  the  cued  recall  first was  appropriate  the second took  sentence  were p r e s e n t e d  the c h i l d  the c h i l d  that  instructions, a  f o r p r a c t i c e . Then t h e c h i l d  Following  recall  who  from e a c h  the s t o r y .  The e n t i r e p r o c e d u r e  child  each  t o pay a t t e n t i o n  one-sentence  were p r e s e n t e d  except  would h e a r  to the c o n d i t i o n  measured. Next, a second recall  instructions  they  was p r e s e n t e d . A f t e r free  room a t t h e i r  were a s k e d  "story"  appropriate  either  told  subjects  went  story  identical  were  one-sentence p r a c t i c e the  i n d i v i d u a l l y in a small  listened  recall  task  twenty m i n u t e s p e r tape who  recorded  and  were u n a b l e t o  each story  school)  and  recall  (one  subjects.  20  Results Four  dependent  analysis. and  the  The  free  the o r d e r  variables  paraphrased  recall  cued  task y i e l d e d  cued  recall,  syntactic  complexity  serial  order  recall.  of  these dependent  calculated  and  having  rater  Gued  giving  recall Length  question  (1) p a r t i a l l y The 1.  found  pictures questions Although  used to  w o r t h one correct  while  analysis  of  and  were: . Unit  Utterance),  of p i c t u r e s  and  within  and  repetition  each  school  (Bock,1975).  to  a  procedures  second  judge  sample of t e n p r o t o c o l s .  Inter-  (see A p p e n d i x  effect  (1977) was  paraphrased  point.  Each  (.5),  or  cued  recall  of p i c t u r e s  In  F  C).  d i d not  this  children reach  recall.  s c o r e d as  Each  2  correct  are  presented  paraphrased  cued  school,  children  answered  significantly  who  in  (0).  scores on  employed  d i d not view  significance  who  in  recall  (1,56)=5.90,_ p=0.0l8;  to s t o r i e s  than  cued  answer was  incorrect  1 (univariate  listening  Levin  score  p_=0.028).  correctly this  names  (Information  directions  by Ruch and  main e f f e c t  in School  F=5.12,  measure  Recall  mean p a r a p h r a s e d A  one  t h e above s c o r i n g  were a l l above -.94  study  was  for  scoring  multi-variate  the  were a n a l y z e d  s c o r e a random  procedure  the p r e s e n t  down  by  reliabilities  The  was  into  effects  reliability  him  Paraphrased  Table  variables  the  t h r e e measures. T h e i r  (Mean  The  in  task y i e l d e d  t h e Roy-Bargman Step-down F t e s t Inter-rater  was  recall  semantic  Score),  using  used  i n w h i c h t h e y were e n t e r e d  paraphrased  •on  were  Step-  viewed more  pictures.  in School  2  at  21  as  Table 1 P a r a p h r a s e d Cued R e c a l l : Mean Number of C o r r e c t Answers a F u n c t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n a l C o n d i t i o n S c h o o l .2  School 1 CONDITION  No P i c .  Picture  Mean  No P i c .  Picture  Mean  No R e p e t .  4.19  6.8.1/  5.50  6.00  6.88  6.43  Repetition  5.88  6.88  6.38  6.13  7.94  7.03  Mean  5.03  6.84  5.94  6.06  7.40  6.73  the  0.05  level  it  approached  ( 1 ,56)=3.29_j_ p=0.075; Step-down were  A  simplified by S t e i n  information  information corresponds inter-rater  version & Glenn  recalled.  units  of the i n f o r m a t i o n a l (1975) was used The  3  containing  to a p r o p o s i t i o n , agreement  about  was 85%. A l l d i f f e r e n c e s were j u d g e s . The  presence unit  F = 3 . 34 ,_ p=0 . 070 )  children's  scored  the  means  only  the nominal  partially  correct  simple  divided  how  the s t o r i e s should  sentence.  by d i s c u s s i o n were  information  If  were  a  then  no i n f o r m a t i o n  Initial  f o r the  information  had r e c a l l e d t h e  r e c a l l e d only unit  roughly  between t h e  u n i t s . Each  the  into  be d i v i d e d  examined  ( 1 ) , i f the c h i l d  information, (.5).  procedure  t o measure t h e amount  or  resolved  as c o r r e c t  units  one v e r b e a c h . E a c h u n i t  protocols  or absence of these  was  stories  v e r b and a t l e a s t one noun. I f t h e c h i l d or  and  F  Recall  developed  two  (Univariate  i n the expected d i r e c t i o n .  Semantic  of  significance  was  the verb, scored  from t h a t  unit  as was  22  recalled,  i t was s c o r e d as a b s e n t ( 0 ) .  The t a b l e Table  2.  of means f o r  semantic  recall  is  presented  The d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c o r e s on t h i s measure  was  in  fairly  Table 2 Semantic R e c a l l : Mean Number o f I n f o r m a t i o n U n i t s R e c a l l e d as a F u n c t i o n o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l C o n d i t i o n School  School 1  2  CONDITION  No P i c .  Picture  Mean  No P i c .  Picture  Mean  No  7.94  10.63  9.28  6.06  7.62  6.84  Repet i t i on  8.13  7.88  8.00  1.0.31  8. 56  9.44  Mean  8.03  9.25  8.64  8.19  8.09  8. 14  flat with  Repet.  w i t h a wide s t a n d a r d a  range  interactions this  between  who  repetition  had  than  (Univariate  Syntactic  to  in  school  repetition  children  and  significance.  tended  2,  the  In t h i s  were  8.39,  who  the  F (1,56)=3.54  x  on  between  d i d n o t have  school children  on t h e t o t a l  who d i d not hear  found  difference  children  to score higher  and Step-down  was  17/26. No s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s o r  utterance  length i s highly  complexity  ( e . g . R.Brown,1973) mean  was  as  followed  The mean  who  information  sentences  repeated  p=0.065).  Recall  Since  used  (3.93).  kind of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support  approached  repetition  recalled  *  2/26  measure. However,  children  had  from  deviation  an  index  correlated  length  of  syntactic  utterance  of s y n t a c t i c , c o m p l e x i t y .  was t h e s y s t e m u s e d  with  The  by T y a c k and G o t t s l e b e n  (MLU)  procedure (1974)  to  23  obtain  the  scoring  language  by  the t o t a l The  mean  number  of  words r e c a l l e d  s a m p l e s . The t o t a l  per u t t e r a n c e  number of words was  when  divided  number of u t t e r a n c e s .  mean MLU s c o r e s a r e p r e s e n t e d  i n T a b l e . 3. A main  .Table 3 Mean L e n g t h o f U t t e r a n c e : Mean MLU as a F u n c t i o n o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l  Condition  School 1  School  effect  2  CONDITION  No P i c .  Picture  Mean  No P i c .  Picture  Mean  No R e p e t .  7.51  6.85  7.18  5.30  6. 1 1  5.70.  Repet i t i on  7.24  7.30  7.27  8.07  8.35  8.21  Mean  7.38  7.07  7.23  6.69  7.23  6.96  of  repetition  2=0.004;  was  Step-down  replicated  in  found  i n School  F=7.51,  School  2 (Univariate F  £=.008).  This  effect  found  interaction  in either  Serial  Order  between  pictures  of  and  pictures  Stepand  repetition  was  i n which t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  is  of R e c a l l recall,  indicates  temporal  order  develop  a  the order  the a b i l i t y  of t h e s u b j e c t s t o remember t h e  i n w h i c h t h e s t o r y was t o l d .  procedure  confounded with scoring  not  school.  In m e a s u r i n g recalled  was  1 ( U n i v a r i a t e F ( 1 , 56) =0 . 0 11 _j_ p=0.92;  down F ( 1 , 56 ) =0 . 03j_ p=0.86). No main e f f e c t significant  (1,56)=9.01,  in  which  amount r e c a l l e d .  procedure  serial Lee  i n which the t o t a l  I t was  order  (Note  important  of r e c a l l 2)  to  was n o t  recommended  a  number o f i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s  no  24  that  were  calculate  recalled the  individual. units, 3  +  highest For  2  +  subject  if  +2  who  1 = 45.  unit  three  u n i t s were r e c a l l e d the  would  score  2-3-1.  1/3  S/he  i f the  would  order  score  presented.  i n the  order  1-3-2,  u n i t s were r e c a l l e d  score  0/3  i f the  School  they  w i t h an  c o u l d be  0.71  The  cell  order  were then  means  the  obtained  converted  other on  Pic.  scores  arcsine transformation  compared w i t h  2  0.74  0.69  transformed  Condition  0.69  0.82  scores  the  0.76  Mean  s u b j e c t s . The  in  0.75  0.70  all  or  0.73  0.81  serial  3-1-2  0.77  Repetition  way  order  S/he  0.76  0.76  3-2-1. In t h i s  2-1-3.  2/3  0.67  0.68  order  score  0.73  0.84  Repet.  if  0.61  No  No  3/3  Mean  Mean  Pic.  a  Picture  Picture  No  score  School  1  the  i n which  u n i t s were r e c a l l e d  Table 4 S e r i a l O r d e r of R e c a l l : as a F u n c t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n a l  Mean S c o r e s  CONDITION  i n the  units,  example,  would or  +  which  order  i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s would  4  9 + 8 + 7 +  For  1-2-3. S/he  that  would be  in  to the  to  information  would be  a c t u a l order  order  for  five  score  used  ten. i n f o r m a t i o n  compared  been  i n the  u n i t s were r e c a l l e d  the  was  originally  recalled  order  possible  recalled  recalled  Next  a s u b j e c t was  score  possible serial  each  had  by  i f a subject  If a subject  +  recalled  sentences  the  10.  order  highest possible s e r i a l  6 + 5 + 4+3  child  example,  1 =  recalled  serial  his/her highest  his/her  the  or p a r t l y  were g e n e r a t e d to percentages  (Kirk,1968)  so  for and that  subjects. serial  order  of  recall  ar-e  25  presented was  in Table  extremely  significant  4. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c o r e s on t h i s  varied  measure  ( S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n = . 2 7 ; R a n g e = . 0 3 - 1 . 0 0 ) . No  e f f e c t s or i n t e r a c t i o n s  were  found.  D i s c u s s i on The  results will  implications,  be  discussed  methodological  in  terms  limitations  of  theoretical  and  educational  implications.  Theoretical  Implications  The main functions  p u r p o s e of t h i s s t u d y  of p i c t u r e s  and r e p e t i t i o n  learning  are  hierarchically  hypothesis  that  the f u n c t i o n s  related and The  r e p e t i t i o n on b o t h c u e d  functions and  main No  on  that  or  to determine  that  independently  and f r e e and  l e d to the p r e d i c t i o n  that  story  main  any  of  between  the four  between  recall  effects on b o t h  e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s  on p a r a p h r a s e d c u e d . r e c a l l  one  school  e f f e c t of r e p e t i t i o n on MLU  the  other  schools.  school, The main  consideration School  but none  2 and  of  these  e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s  since in fact  this effect  did  i t appears that  occur.  independent of  pictures  measures. were  found  w h i c h were a n a l y z e d . A  main  and a main  The  pictures  would  i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatments  dependent v a r i a b l e s  prose  related.  r e p e t i t i o n have  e f f e c t s of r e p e t i t i o n would o c c u r interactions  oral  are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y  interactions  pictures  whether t h e  in f a c i l i t a t i n g  of t h e two a i d s  l e d t o the p r e d i c t i o n  hypothesis  was  effects  was was  in  found i n  up  across  i n School  1 merits  serious  approach  significance  a ceiling  held  found  in  e f f e c t occured in  26  this can  school  on  the paraphrased  be c a u t i o u s l y  facilitate provision  concluded  performance  Unfortunately,  that  on  of r e p e t i t i o n  cued  recall  task. Therefore i t  the p r o v i s i o n  paraphrased  of  cued  pictures  recall  did  while the  had no e f f e c t .  this  finding  in itself  does n o t  enable  one  to  distinguish  between t h e two h y p o t h e s e s .  S i n c e r e p e t i t i o n had  no  effect  a l l on  is  at  meaningfully or  say  something In  this  from result  of p i c t u r e s  cued  recall  grade  study  has r e p l i c a t e d  Ruch and L e v i n did  cued  while children  better  than  facilitated recall. affect to  by  groups.  both  S i n c e both recall  use  repetition future  no b e t t e r  both  research  than  The  to  hierarchically  measure w h i l e a t t e m p t s  difficult  enough t h a t  effect single  present  a ceiling  t h e main e f f e c t  or a i n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e s s or a  dual  that  to than  children group  treatments  group  who  are  task  that  was v e r b a t i m  have been  whether  found  pictures  effect  related.  s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d  made  of  on p a r a p h r a s e d  independently  recall  this  received  would have been a b e t t e r  or  to  make  the  was cued to task and In as a task  does not o c c u r .  of p i c t u r e s  c a n be a d e q u a t e l y process  that  did significantly  recall  and p i c t u r e s  findings  paraphrased  younger  pictures  cued  cued  (1977)  on t h e  a  determine  dependent  At  with  who v i e w e d  measure t h i s  verbatim  more  i t i s apparent  the c o n t r o l  repetition  attempting  are  results  instructional  on t h i s  in  and r e p e t i t i o n  (1977) f o u n d  repetition recall  p r o v i d e d something  three c h i l d r e n  their  impossible  t o Ruch a n d L e v i n ' s  the e f f e c t s  children.  i t  repetition.  about  of  measure  whether p i c t u r e s  different  relating  this  model.  without  a  repetition  e x p l a i n e d by e i t h e r a The  single  process  27  explanation  for  this  deep p r o c e s s i n g .  Since  pictures facilitate  recall  this  indicates  task,  p r o c e s s i n g . The cued  recall  pictures  effect  dual.process  task  pictures facilitate  this  result  replicates  distinction  t o be  Although  two  hypotheses,  recall These  any  evidence  some  that  repetition  2  school  1,  this  finding  of c h i l d r e n i n repetition utterances  level  finding  drawn  with  was  School  used  recalling  c o n d i t i o n s . That  In  the  there  longer  recall  in  presented. were  no  there  who  the  few  effect  i s only this  tended  did  weak task.  to  not  on  score  receive  not  not  replicated  i n d i c a t e s a need  for further  i t was  measure. The of  and  reach  only  repetition  school,  stories was  any  did  since  this  enable  be  there  effect  a main e f f e c t  2.  while  free story  can  repetition  this  only  indicates  about  p e r f o r m a n c e on  children  and  Since  the  P i c t u r e s had  a more s e n s i t i v e  conditions while  t o be  m e a s u r e s and  since  0.05  perhaps with  significant  results.  than  deep  Thus,  cued  because  received  to  hypotheses.  paraphrased  facilitated  recall  the  two  this  paraphrased  i t does not  in conjunction  story r e c a l l  However, at  processing.  conclusions  who  the  on  processing.  research,  tentative  children  semantic  significance  research  are  free  on  any  lead  i s that  tentative possibilities  the  repetition.  other  enable  involves  o n . t h i s measure, t h i s  on  free story r e c a l l  School  better  in  results  conclusions  of  previous  task  performance  pictures  simultaneous  i f considered  results  significant  In  not  recall  simultaneous  made between t h e  the  t h e m s e l v e s do  that  performance  that  the  explanation  involves  facilitate  i s that  on  children  other the  MLU  in  the  p r e s u m a b l y more  complex  than  in  a main e f f e c t  children of  repetition  the on  28  mean l e n g t h of u t t e r a n c e that  the  prose  repetition  learning.  schools,  it  between t h e  may  i n one  facilitate  However/  would  accounted  appear  found  in School  for,  more  2 occurred  complexity.  has  This the  indication  an  answering  semantic  facilitate  syntactic  evidence  from  paradigmatic  p e r h a p s be  encoding. and  Lahey,l978; semantic  of kinds  than  by  oral  across  2 that  effect this  of  have  not  repetition  indicates the  that  repetition  is with  and  p r o c e s s i n g has  facilitate  the  finding  have  of  research and  attempting  process  aspects as an yet  different.  repetition  may with that  aspects  T h i s argument  of  could  syntactic  and  of p r o g r e s s i v e l y d e e p e r and  semantics  language  ordinal  t o be  to  indicates  order  syntax of  rather  appear  syntactic  to  some  is consistent  which  processing.  both  pictures  independent  while  T h i s argument  language  syntactic  that  Pictures  prose  to d e s c r i b e semantics  hierarchically  to  that  questions, provides  of o r a l  However, as  important  i s weak, i t a p p e a r s  functions.  in a single  Dale,1972),  seems more v a l i d rather  h o l d up  examine  repetition  process  countered  levels  and  encoding.  aspects  processing  it  along  encoding  dual  semantic  and  to  evidence  related  different  integral  order  of p a r a p h r a s e  that p i c t u r e s  facilitate  of  school  chance. Again,  effect  finding,  hierarchically  language  in  of  there.are .differences  significant  i n mind t h a t t h e  when r e p e t i t i o n  than  by  1 and  aspects  d i d not  either  indication  fully.  Keeping  facilitate  the  some  syntactic  effect  that school  or  more r e s e a r c h i s needed effect  the  s i n c e the  p o p u l a t i o n s of  been  school provides  o r d e r i n g of  developed and  (e.g.Bloom  are &  structural  (Nelson,1977) i t  syntax  as  nominally  29  To  be more c o n s i s t e n t  should of  have  story  facilitated  recall  facilitated no  Thus,  performance  s u c h as s e r i a l  performance  evidence  for this the  w i t h a d u a l p r o c e s s model,  on  semantic  i n the p r e s e n t  suggestion that combined  facilitate  performance  on  tentative  support  functions  have  Methodological The  the  that  recall  is  research  using these  each  story  cued  and  as was  the  2.  if  In  both  free  found  facilitate  the  cued  recall,  provides only  hypothesis rather  oral  that  pictures  pictures  than h i e r a r c h i c a l l y  prose  by  and  related  learning.  t h e d e p e n d e n t measures  scores  on  a ceiling on  ceiling  paraphrased  effect  free  sensitive  Perhaps  task  picture  effect  on  by  (e.g.  each  and  study,  repetition cued  of p i c t u r e s  recall on  be effect  have  In p r e v i o u s  1976; was  before  Ruch  measured  tested on  cued  would  were p r e s e n t e d  recall  a floor  L e v i n et a_l.(l976),  that  and  a_l. ,  subject could  so t h a t  indicates  difficult.  e_t  recall and  difference  stories  Levin  present  so t h a t  recall,  both  The  measure  paraphrased  effect  more  used. cued  this  story .recall  to  been  stories,  the  on  a significant  had  measured  Levin,1977).  may  paraphrased  results  The  occured  was  study.  f o r the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t  in School  recall  was  that  of  not  effects.  account  However, t h e r e  finding  limited  t h e r e was  measure  treatment may  was  non-significant  this  have  the  independent  distribution  indicates  should  Limitations  study  skewed  recall.  aspects  with  the  in f a c i l i t a t i n g  sequential  pictures  repetition  processing  for  other  o r d e r , and  syntactic  repetition  on  repetition  free  on  &  after both  recall,  would be a v o i d e d . S i n c e  free  30  recall to  i s a more d i f f i c u l t  find  stimulus  range o f s c o r e s  on b o t h  that  recall  might  recall  and f r e e r e c a l l .  than  two c o m p l e t e l y  verbatim  The  might  and y e t s t i l l  or paraphrased  cued  oral  prose  pictures  instructional  support?  measure,  both  than to a  children. question  both  cued  t h e use  to instructional task  demands  oral  both  provide  the  children  longer  was:  pictures  information  does not r e s u l t the  study  same  amount  using  i n t h e combined  used  when  presenting  However, t o p r o v i d e more r e s e a r c h  a more  effect  treatment  in  free  story  oral  both  pictures  information  definite  This and  t o young  answer  to  this  i s needed.  individual  d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t t h e f o c u s  one o f t h e more i n t e r e s t i n g  range of s c o r e s  that  of  t h e c h i l d r e n who d i d  utterances  recommendation  and  p i c t u r e s and  i n an a d d i t i v e  than  To  or would t h e  c h i l d r e n who d i d n o t r e c e i v e r e p e t i t i o n .  tentative  Although study,  measuring  on  in this  should  answered more q u e s t i o n s  the  be  asked  I t appears that while  in combination  one  repetition  wide  alone  view p i c t u r e s , and used  leads  before  story,  recall.  recall,  of  recall  a longer  involve different  question  provision  not  stories,  be more s e n s i t i v e  be used when p r e s e n t i n g  condition  i n an a p p r o p r i a t e  i n s t e a d of f r e e r e c a l l ,  repetition  any  i t is difficult  Implications  facilitate  on  result  different  Further,  main e d u c a t i o n a l  repetition  recall  p r o d u c e a d e s i r a b l e r a n g e of s c o r e s  effects  Educational  cued  measures. Perhaps u s i n g  open ended q u e s t i o n s  treatment  than  materials that w i l l  rather  of  task  on b o t h  f i n d i n g s was t h a t  semantic  and s e r i a l  of t h i s  there  order  of  was a recall  31  in  the free  related low  recall  task.  These  differences  t o t h e f a c t o r s o f p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n .  correlation  ability  to  indicates of  story  recall  that  t h e same  determine  between the  separate  task both  ability  recall  information  in  Appendix  some  C).  not  F u r t h e r , the  information  correct  serial  s k i l l s a r e i n v o l v e d on t h e s e  (see why  to  were  Research  two  is  young c h i l d r e n have t h e s e  and order  aspects  needed  s k i l l s and  some do n o t , and what t h e e d u c a t i o n a l  i m p l i c a t i o n s of having  not  the a b i l i t y  having  the  these  content  important oral  reading  the  f o r such  that  pre-cursers  in  and  expression,  possible  s k i l l s are. Clearly, order  school and  of o r a l l y  related  arguing  tasks  the  skills  in oral  involved  to r e c a l l  both  following,  Further, story  or  information i s  as d i r e c t i o n  logically.  the s k i l l s i n v o l v e d to  presented  to  i t i s very  narration  are  i n w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n and  c o m p r e h e n s i o n . Thus, even on t h e two d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s  w h i c h no t r e a t m e n t  which generate  effects  questions  were  deserving  found, further  there study.  are  results  32  Footnotes In reviewing this literature only studies i n w h i c h the c h i l d r e n l i s t e n e d to o r a l l y presented material or read aloud will be cited. Studies of the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s on r e a d i n g ( e . g . Samuels,1970) a r e beyond t h e s c o p e of t h i s study because new v a r i a b l e s s u c h as word d e c o d i n g s k i l l s must be c o n s i d e r e d i n d i s c u s s i n g t h a t a r e a of r e s e a r c h . 1  B e c a u s e of the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a c e i l i n g e f f e c t would o c c u r u s i n g t h i s s c o r i n g system, a s t r i c t s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e was also e m p l o y e d . In t h i s p r o c e d u r e , e a c h q u e s t i o n was w o r t h two p o i n t s . Answers were g i v e n a s c o r e of (2) i f the e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n and a t l e a s t one c o r r e c t d e s c r i p t i v e a d j e c t i v e were present, a score of (1) if the e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was p r e s e n t and a s c o r e of (.5) i f p a r t of t h e e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was present. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c o r e s was the same u s i n g e i t h e r the l i b e r a l or the strict s c o r i n g s y s t e m f o r p a r a p h r a s e d c u e d r e c a l l , and the c o r r e l a t i o n between the two methods was v e r y h i g h ( P e a r s o n r =.95, p .0001). Also, i n i t i a l . analyses yielded identical results. This implied that both methods were measuring e s s e n t i a l l y the same t h i n g . O n l y the l i b e r a l s c o r i n g method was included i n t h e a n a l y s i s s i n c e i t i s the s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e t h a t has been u s e d i n p r e v i o u s analyses. 2  . R u b i n ' s (1978) word u n i t a n a l y s i s p r o c e d u r e was a l s o used and compared t o t h e above p r o c e d u r e f o r e a s e of use and reliability. The high c o r r e l a t i o n between both procedures for scoring semantic recall and i d e n t i c a l i n i t i a l analyses i n d i c a t e d that even t h o u g h the s i z e of the u n i t s of analysis are different, they are providing the same i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t when t o t a l amount of content recalled is the question of interest, both procedures are valid ways of o b t a i n i n g t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n a l u n i t s p r o c e d u r e was c h o s e n as t h e f i n a l method t o i n c l u d e i n the multi-variate analysis because this is the u n i t s i z e most commonly c o n s i d e r e d i n s c o r i n g f r e e r e c a l l ( e . g . ( M a n d l e r & J o h n s o n , 1 977; L e s g o l d , et. a l . , 1977). 3  33  Reference 1. B u l l o c k , M . P e r s o n a l 2. L e e , S . S .  Personal  Notes  Communication,  Communication,  November  October  1981.  1981.  34  Reference  A n d e r s o n , R . C . How comprehension. 170.  List  to construct achievement tests to assess Review of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1972. 42,145-  A u s u b e l , D . P . & Y o u s e f , M . The e f f e c t of spaced repetition on meaningful retention. J o u r n a l of G e n e r a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 73,147-150. Bender,B.G. & Levin,J.R. Pictures, children's prose learning. P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 8 , 70, 583-588.  imagery, Journal  Bloom,L. & Lahey,M. Language Development New Y o r k : W i l e y & Sons,1978. Bock,R.D. R e s e a r c h . New  and retarded of E d u c a t i o n a l  and Language  Multivariate Statistical York: McGraw-Hill,1975.  Methods  Brody,P.J. & Legenza,A. Can pictorial mathemagenic functions? Educational T e c h n o l o g y J o u r n a l , 1980, 28, 25-29.  in Behavioral  attributes serve C o m m u n i c a t i o n and  Brown,A.L. R e c o g n i t i o n , r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , and r e c a l l sequences by pre-operational children. Child 1975, 46,156-166. Brown,R. A F i r s t L a n g u a g e : The E a r l y S t a g e s . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press,1973.  Disorders.  of n a r r a t i v e Development,  Cambridge,  Mass.:  Craik,R.I.M. & L o c k h a r t , R . S . L e v e l s of p r o c e s s i n g : A framework for memory research. 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 , 1 9 7 2 , 11 , 671-684. Cummins,J. & Mulcahy,R. S i m u l t a n e o u s and and n a r r a t i v e s p e e c h . C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l 1979, JJ_, 64-71.  successive processing of B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e ,  Dale,P.S. . Language D e v e l o p m e n t : S t r u c t u r e Y o r k : H o l t R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1 9 7 6 .  and F u n c t i o n .  D a s , J . P . , K i r b y , J . P . & Jarman,R.F. Simultaneous and synthesis: An a l t e r n a t i v e model for cognitive P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1 9 7 5 , 82, 87-103.  New  successive abilities.  D a s , J . P . , K i r b y , J . P . & Jarman, R.F. S i m u l t a n e o u s and S u c c e s s i v e C o g n i t i v e P r o c e s s e s . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1 9 7 9 . DiVesta,F. & Educational  Grey,G.S. Listening and n o t e P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 63, 8-14.  t a k i n g . J o u r n a l of  D u c h a s t e l , P . C . R e s e a r c h on i l l u s t r a t i o n s in text: Issues and perspectives. E d u c a t i o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n and T e c h n o l o g y J o u r n a l , 1980, 28, 283-287.  35  Dunham,T.C. & Levin,J.R. Imagery instructions and young children's prose learning: No evidence of "support". C o n t e m p o r a r y E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 9 , 4,107-113., F l e m i n g , M . L . On p i c t u r e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l Science, 1979, 8, 235-251. Guttman,J. The effects of pictures children's oral prose learning. U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n , 1975).  research.  Instructional  and p a r t i a l p i c t u r e s and (Doctoral dissertation,  G u t t m a n , J . , L e v i n , J.R. & . P r e s s l e y ,.M.' P i c t u r e s , p a r t i a l p i c t u r e s , and young children's oral prose learning. 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 , 1977, 69, 473-480. Jarman,R.F. Cognitive processes and syntactical structure: Analysis of paradigmatic and syntagmatic associations. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research,1980,41,153-157. King,D.J., & Cotton, connected discourse feedback. Perceptual Kirk,R.E. Sc i e n c e s .  K.  Repetition and practiced under Motor S k i l l s , 1969,  immediate r e c a l l of delayed auditory 28,177-78.  E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n : P r o c e d u r e s f o r the Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth,1968.  Behavioral  L e s g o l d , A.M. ,. De Good,H. & Levin,J.R. Pictures and young c h i l d r e n ' s p r o s e l e a r n i n g : a s u p p l e m e n t a r y r e p o r t . J o u r n a l of R e a d i n g B e h a v i o r , 1 9 7 7 , 9, 353-360. Lesgold,A.M.,Levin,J.R. Shimron,J. & Guttman,J. P i c t u r e s and young children's learning from oral prose. 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 , 1 9 7 5 , 67, 636-642. Levin,J.R. On f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s i n p r o s e ( T h e o r e t i c a l paper no. 80). Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Schooling, University of W i s c o n s i n , December,1979. Levin,J.R., & Berry,J.K. Children's that's fit to picture. Technology, 1980,  learning of Educational  Levin,J.R.,Bender,B.G. & Lesgold,A.M. P i c t u r e s , young children's oral prose learning. Review, 1976, 24, 367-380.  a l l the news Communication & repetition, and AV Communication-  Levin,J.R. & Lesgold,A.M. On pictures in prose. Educational C o m m u n i c a t i o n and T e c h n o l o g y , 1 9 7 8 , 26, 233-243. > Maki,R.H. & S c h u l l e r , J . E f f e c t s of r e h e a r s a l d u r a t i o n and level of . . p r o c e s s i n g on memory f o r w o r d s . 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 , 1980,j_9, 36-45. M a n d l e r , J . M . & Johnson,N.S. Remembrance o f t h i n g s p a r s e d : Story s t r u c t u r e and r e c a l l . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 7 , 9,111-151.  36  Nelson,T.O. Repetition and d e p t h of p r o c e s s i n g . . J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g & V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1 9 7 7 , 1 6 , 1 5 1 - 171 . O r n s t e i n , P . A . & Naus, M. Rehearsal Processes in children's memory. In Ornstein, P.A. ( E d . ) Memory Development i n C h i l d r e n . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : L . E r 1 baurn A s s o c i a t e s , . 1 978. Paivio,A. Imagery and V e r b a l P r o c e s s e s , R i n e h a r t , and W i n s t o n , 1 9 7 1 .  New  York:  Paivio,A. Imagery and synchronic Psychological Review,1975,16,147-163.  thinking.  Holt, Canadian  Paivio,A. Concerning dual-coding and simultaneous-successive p r o c e s s i n g . C a n a d i a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review,1976,17, 69-71. Petros,T. & H o v i n g , K . The e f f e c t s o f r e v i e w on young c h i l d r e n ' s memory f o r p r o s e . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 1980, 3_0, 33-43 P r e s s l e y , M . Imagery and c h i l d r e n ' s l e a r n i n g : P u t t i n g t h e p i c t u r e i n d e v e l o p m e n t a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1977, 47, 585-622. Purkel,W. & B o r n s t e i n , M . H., P i c t u r e s and imagery children's short-term and long term recall. Developmental Psychology, 1980,16,153-154.  b o t h enhance J o u r n a l of  Reese,H.W. Imagery and a s s o c i a t i v e memory In K a i l & Hagen ( e d s . ) P e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e D e v e l o p m e n t of Memory and C o g n i t i o n , Hillsdale, New J e r s e y : Lawrence E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s , 1 9 7 7 , Ch 5, 113-175. Rohwer,W.D.Jr. Elaboration adolescence. In H.W. Development and B e h a v i o r Press,1973.  and l e a r n i n g in childhood and Reese (Ed.), Advances i n C h i l d (Vol 8). New York: Academic  Rohwer,W.D.Jr.& Harris,W.J. M e d i a e f f e c t s on p r o s e l e a r n i n g i n two populations of children. 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, 6_7, 651-657. Rubin,D.C. Learning  A unit a n a l y s i s o f p r o s e memory. J o u r n a l and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1978,J_7, 599-620.  of V e r b a l  Ruch,M.D. & L e v i n , J . R . Pictorial organization versus verbal repetition of c h i l d r e n ' s prose: Evidence for processing d i f f e r e n c e s . AV C o m m u n i c a t i o n Review, 1977, 2_5, 269-280. Rustead,J. & Coltheart,M. Facilitation of c h i l d r e n ' s prose recall by the presence of p i c t u r e s . Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 1979, 7, 354-359. Samuels,S.J. E f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s on learning to read, c o m p r e h e n s i o n , and a t t i t u d e s . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1970, 40, 397-407.  37  Schnorr, & - A t k i n s o n , R . C . R e p e t i t i o n v e r s u s imagery i n s t r u c t i o n s in the s h o r t - a n d long-term r e t e n t i o n of paired associates. Psychonomic Science,1969,15,183-184. 1969 Silvern,S.B. P l a y , p i c t u r e s , and r e p e t i t i o n : M e d i a t o r s i n a u r a l prose learning. E d u c a t i o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n and T e c h n o l o g y J o u r n a l , 1980, 28,134-139. Stein,N.L. & Glenn,C.G. An a n a l y s i s of s t o r y c o m p r e h e n s i o n i n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l . In R. F r e e d l e ( E d . ) , D i s c o u r s e processing: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Maplewood, New Jersey: Ablex,1977. T r a v i s , L . D . & White,W.B. E x p e r i m e n t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n of the r e c a l l of n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l s by f i v e - y e a r - o l d s . A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1979, 25,137-46. Tyack,D. & Gottsleben,R. Language S a m p l i n g , A n a l y s i s , a n d Training. Palo Alto,CaliforniaConsulting Psychologists Press, 1974. Yarmey,A.D. & B a r k e r , W . J . R e p e t i t i o n v e r s u s imagery i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the i m m e d i a t e - a n d d e l a y e d - r e t e n t i o n of picture and word paired-associates. C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y / R e v i e w of C a n a d i a n P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 2_5, 56-61.  38  Appendix A Free  Examiner  : "Now  asleep,  so  the.  story  I'm g o i n g  you j u s t  who  has  been  him e v e r y t h i n g you remember  about  heard.  wake up. T h i s  you a s t o r y  Mr. Puppet  t o wake up Mr. P u p p e t ,  t h a t you c a n t e l l  "Mr P u p p e t , tell  Story Recall I n s t r u c t i o n s  i s ( C h i l d ' s Name) and s/he i s g o i n g t o  s/he j u s t  : "A s t o r y !  heard".  I love s t o r i e s .  I hope i t ' s g o i n g  t o be a  l o n g one". Examiner  : O.K.  remember a b o u t  go ahead and t e l l the s t o r y  (When t h e s t u d e n t  Examiner can  : "Now  see  if  f o r twenty  can  seconds).  Mr. Puppet  anything  e l s e you  the s t o r y " . s t o p s , pause  f o r twenty  g i v e you one more m i n u t e there  e v e r y t h i n g you  heard".  I want you t o t e l l  (When t h e s t u d e n t I'll  you j u s t  s t o p s pause  remember a b o u t  "Now  Mr. Puppet  is  anything  else  seconds).  t o t h i n k about  the  you c a n remember  story  to  to t e l l  Mr.  Puppet". (After  forty  seconds or a f t e r  the student  has stopped  f o r twenty  seconds) Mr. Puppet  : "What  else  c a n you remember t o t e l l  me  about  story?" (After  the student  Mr. Puppet  stops wait  : Thank you v e r y  f o r twenty  much,  seconds).  t h a t was a g r e a t  story.  the  39  Appendix Instructions  "I  want  to  find  out  Then you you  will  to a  Subjects  much k i d s I will  story.  To  turn  help  y o u r age  can  the•tape  recorder  you  remember  remember on.  it I  want  to:  Control:  "Listen  to each  to.the  story."  attention  Repetition: sure  t o pay  Pictures: pay  listen  to  how  about, s t o r i e s t h e y h e a r . F i r s t  B  "Listen  attention  Pictures  plus  t i m e s . Be  carefully  attention  "Listen to  sentence very  to  the  to each the  sure  sentence  two  carefully.  Be  to  pay  times.  Be  sure  to  sentence  two  story."  pictures  t o pay  each  sentence very  Repetition:  sure  to  c a r e f u l l y . Be  that  go  with  the  story".  " L i s t e n c a r e f u l l y to each  attention  to  the  pictures  that  find  how  go  with  the  much you  can  story". After  you  hear  the  story  remember. L e t ' s  practice  (Practice  story  1)  (Practice  Cued R e c a l l  "The  I  will  with a very  happy  Task)  short  rabbit  out story  chewed on  "What d i d  the  first".  a blue p e n c i l . "  bunny  eat?".  or (Practice about  the  good. You have you  also can  Free R e c a l l story  you  Task) T e l l  me  everything  you  can  remember  just heard"  remembered e v e r y t h i n g " , said  remember about  "Very or  "Very  good Now  the  story".  but  t e l l , me  you  could  everything  40  "Now  that.you  understand  longer  story".  (First  story, followed  you w i l l  again  so t h a t y o u know what Story  t o do I want y o u t o  by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e  "Now.  (Practice  listen  what  t o another  recall  listen  to  a  task.)  s t o r y . But f i r s t  let's practice  t o do.  2 ) "The s c a r e d  duck l o o k e d  back a t t h e  speeding  car". (Practice  Cued R e c a l l )  "What d i d t h e b i r d  see?".  or (Practice  "Now  Free  that  Recall:  you  another  long  (Second  story,  Same a s a b o v e ) .  understand  what  t o do I want  you t o l i s t e n t o  story".  followed  by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e  recall  task).  Appendix C CORRELATIONS  OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES  Inter-rater Dependent  Reliability  Variable  Pearson r  P a r a p h r a s e d Cued R e c a l l Total Information Units T o t a l Word U n i t s Mean L e n g t h o f U t t e r a n c e S e r i a l Order  Inter-Correlation  Matrix  :  (MLU)  o f Dependent  .99 .97 .97 .98 .94  Variables  Var i a b l e : P a r a p h r a s e d Cued R e c a l l 1) Liberal 2) S t r i c t Free Story R e c a l l 3) T o t a l I n f . U n i t s 4) T o t a l Word U n i t s 5) MLU 6) S e r i a l O r d e r  1 .00 .94 .32 . 30 .1 3 .02  1 .00 . 1 9 1 .00 .1 7 .95 1 .00 .23 .08 .1 6 . 16 .1 1 .1 6  00 01  1.00  

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.831.1-0095088/manifest

Comment

Related Items