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.

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_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 of V i c t o r i a , 1 9 7 7 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Human Learning, Development and I n s t r u c t i o n Program, Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology and S p e c i a l Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February,1982 (c) Linda H i l l , 1982 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n ot be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date r \ r a i T /na \ i i A b s t r a c t The e f f e c t s of using p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n to f a c i l i t a t e the o r a l prose l e a r n i n g of grade"one c h i l d r e n was i n v e s t i g a t e d in a m u l t i - v a r i a t e f a c t o r i a l experiment. The purpose of the study was to determine whether p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n have h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d or independent f u n c t i o n s i n a i d i n g the r e c a l l of o r a l l y presented m a t e r i a l . I t was argued that i n t e r a c t i o n s between p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n on paraphrased cued r e c a l l and f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l would support the hypothesis that the two a i d s are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d , while main e f f e c t s on the dependent measures would support the hypothesis that the two ai d s have independent f u n c t i o n s in f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . A main e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s on paraphrased cued r e c a l l was found. No e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s or r e p e t i t i o n were found on s e r i a l .order of r e c a l l or semantic f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l . In one school only, there was a main e f f e c t of r e p e t i t i o n on the length of utte r a n c e s used when r e t e l l i n g the s t o r i e s d u r i n g f r e e r e c a l l . The r e s u l t s provide weak evidence supporting the hypothesis that p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n have independent f u n c t i o n s i n f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . P i c t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e d the answering of paraphrased qu e s t i o n s while r e p e t i t i o n , when i t had an e f f e c t , f a c i l i t a t e d s y n t a c t i c complexity. T h e o r e t i c a l , methodological and e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the study were d i s c u s s e d . TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..... .... . ........ 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 4 Models Of C o g n i t i v e P r o c e s s i n g 5 Or a l Prose Learning ., 8 P i c t u r e s • 8 R e p e t i t i o n 8 P i c t u r e s Versus R e p e t i t i o n 9 R e c a l l Measures 12 Summary . . . 14 METHOD 16 Subjects 16 Design And M a t e r i a l s 17 F a c t o r s 17 S t o r i e s 17 R e c a l l Measures • 18 Procedure ' 19 RESULTS 2 0 Paraphrased Cued R e c a l l 20 Semantic R e c a l l 21 S y n t a c t i c R e c a l l 22 S e r i a l Order Of R e c a l l 23 DISCUSSION 25 T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s 25 i v M e t h o d o l o g i c a l L i m i t a t i o n s 29 E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s 30 FOOTNOTES ........ 32 REFERENCE NOTES 33 REFERENCE LIST 34 APPENDICES . . . .'. 38 A. Free Story R e c a l l I n s t r u c t i o n s 38 B. I n s t r u c t i o n s To Subjects 39 C. C o r r e l a t i o n s Of Dependent V a r i a b l e s •••• 4 1 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Paraphrased Cued R e c a l l : Mean Number Of C o r r e c t Answers As 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 21 2. Semantic R e c a l l : Mean Number Of Information U n i t s R e c a l l e d As 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 .... 22 3. Mean Length Of U t t e r a n c e : Mean MLU As 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 23 4. S e r i a l Order Of R e c a l l : Mean Scores As 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 24 1 Introduct ion Since much of school l e a r n i n g i n v o l v e s remembering o r a l l y presented i n f o r m a t i o n , i t i s important to f i n d e f f e c t i v e ways of f a c i l i t a t i n g c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l prose l e a r n i n g and to attempt to d e s c r i b e the u n d e r l y i n g c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n s of such f a c i l i t a t i o n . The use of p i c t u r e s and the use of r e p e t i t i o n d u r i n g o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n of info r m a t i o n have both been shown to improve c h i l d r e n ' s r e c a l l . C h i l d r e n who l i s t e n to passages accompanied by r e l e v a n t p i c t u r e s perform b e t t e r on subsequent r e c a l l measures than c h i l d r e n who l i s t e n to passages without p i c t u r e s (see L e v i n & Lesgold,1978; Levin,1979 f o r reviews). S i m i l a r l y , c h i l d r e n who repeat or l i s t e n to r e p e t i t i o n s of o r a l prose show gr e a t e r r e c a l l than c h i l d r e n who simply hear passages once (e.g. L e v i n , Bender & Lesgold,1976; Petros & Hoving ,1980). There are three p o s s i b l e ways that the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n can be r e l a t e d . F i r s t , these a i d s may have the same f u n c t i o n . Second, p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n may serve h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s . T h i r d , the two kinds of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support may have independent f u n c t i o n s i n f a c i l i t a t i n g r e c a l l . The f i r s t p o s s i b i l i t y has been suggested by Resnick ( c i t e d in L evin et al.,1976; Levin,1979) and Brody and Legenza (1980). They have hypothesized that the reason p i c t u r e s i n prose are h e l p f u l i s simply because p i c t u r e s prompt c h i l d r e n to rehearse the i n f o r m a t i o n j u s t g i v e n . 2 Recent rese a r c h examining t h i s simple r e h e a r s a l hypothesis p r o v i d e s evidence that i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t to account f o r the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n on r e c a l l . While both a i d s h e l p i n comparison to c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s on cued r e c a l l measures, p i c t u r e s r e s u l t i n b e t t e r performance than r e p e t i t i o n (e.g. L e v i n , Bender & Lesgold,1976; Ruch & Levin ,1977). T h i s f i n d i n g has been i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g that the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d . Ruch and L e v i n (1977) have suggested that p i c t u r e s provide something more  than a simple r e p e t i t i o n of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e i r hypothesis i s based on C r a i k and Lockhart's (1972) d e p t h - o f - p r o c e s s i n g model of memory. An a l t e r n a t i v e h y p othesis i s that p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n may have independent f u n c t i o n s in f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . P o s s i b l y p i c t u r e s provide something d i f f e r e n t than a r e p e t i t i o n of the v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n . It i s important both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and p r a c t i c a l l y to d i s t i n g u i s h between these two hypotheses about how p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n f u n c t i o n in f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . If the two a i d s are i n f a c t 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 , they can be c o n s i d e r e d to f u n c t i o n at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of a s i n g l e c o g n i t i v e process as Ruch and L e v i n (1977) suggest. E d u c a t i o n a l l y , 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 imply that only the a i d that i s the most f a c i l i t a t i v e ( p i c t u r e s ) need be p r o v i d e d to maximally f a c i l i t a t e o r a l * p r o s e l e a r n i n g . However, i f the *two a i d s have independent f u n c t i o n s , then a s i n g l e process e x p l a n a t i o n would not adequately d e s c r i b e the u n d e r l y i n g f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n . Instead, a model which 3 p o s t u l a t e s more than one p r o c e s s i n g system may be b e t t e r able to c o n s i d e r nominally d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s (e.g. Das, K i r b y & Jarman,l979; Paivio,.1 97 1 ) . From an e d u c a t i o n a l p o i n t of view, independent f u n c t i o n s would mean that when in f o r m a t i o n i s being presented o r a l l y , p r o v i d i n g both p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n together should be more,helpful than p r o v i d i n g p i c t u r e s alone. In examining the r e s u l t s of r e s e a r c h to d a t e r i t i s not p o s s i b l e to d i s t i n g u i s h between these two hypotheses because of two l i m i t a t i o n s . F i r s t , the only kind of task on which the e f f e c t s of p r o v i d i n g p i c t u r e s or r e p e t i t i o n have been compared i s cued r e c a l l . While p i c t u r e s have been found to be more e f f e c t i v e than r e p e t i t i o n on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r type of task, there may be other tasks f o r which r e p e t i t i o n i s more e f f e c t i v e than p i c t u r e s . Second, while the e f f e c t s of these two kinds of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support have been compared to each other, using them together i n a combined i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatment has never been examined. Without l o o k i n g at the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n combined i t i s impossible to determine whether the two a i d s have o r d i n a l l y r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s with p i c t u r e s p r o v i d i n g something more than r e p e t i t i o n , as Ruch and L e v i n (1977) suggest, or i f p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n have nominally d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s i n f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . To d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the two hypotheses, the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n were compared f a c t o r i a l l y on both a f r e e r e c a l l task and a cued r e c a l l task. The two hypotheses l e d to d i f f e r e n t p r e d i c t i o n s about the p a t t e r n s of r e c a l l that would occur. The hypothesis that the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d l e d to the p r e d i c t i o n that 4 s i n c e . p i c t u r e s provide something more than r e p e t i t i o n , using the two a i d s together would be redundant. Therefore, an i n t e r a c t i o n between the two f a c t o r s , such that the r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t would be subsumed under the p i c t u r e e f f e c t was expected to occur. In other words, using p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n together should have the same e f f e c t as using p i c t u r e s alone on both cued and f r e e r e c a l l measures. In c o n t r a s t , the hypothesis t h a t the two a i d s have independent f u n c t i o n s i n f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g l e d to the p r e d i c t i o n that s i n c e p i c t u r e s p rovide something d i f f e r e n t than r e p e t i t i o n , using the two a i d s together would be a d d i t i v e r a ther than redundant. Th e r e f o r e , i n s t e a d of an i n t e r a c t i o n , main e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and main e f f e c t s of r e p e t i t i o n on both r e c a l l tasks were expected. L i t e r a t u r e Review In t h i s s e c t i o n the framework f o r the present experiment on the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n in o r a l prose l e a r n i n g w i l l be developed. F i r s t , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n g l e and dual process models of c o g n i t i o n w i l l be presented and compared. Second, these models w i l l p r o v i d e a context f o r reviewing r e s e a r c h d e a l i n g with the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and the f u n c t i o n s of r e p e t i t i o n in o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . T h i r d , the use of paraphrased cued r e c a l l and free s t o r y r e c a l l as measures of o r a l prose l e a r n i n g w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . 5 Models of C o g n i t i v e P r o c e s s i n g While there are almost as many models of c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g as there are t h e o r i z e r s , most can be s o r t e d i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s . S i n g l e process models propose that there i s one h i e r a r c h i c a l l y organized system and dual process models p o s t u l a t e two independent systems for p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . Two s i n g l e process models are the d e p t h - o f - p r o c e s s i n g framework (Craik & Lockhart,1972), and the stages of encoding approach (Anderson,1972). In both models i t i s suggested that i n f o r m a t i o n i s processed through a s e r i e s of h i e r a r c h i c a l l y arranged l e v e l s p r o g r e s s i n g from a s u r f a c e l e v e l of sensory p e r c e p t i o n through a l e v e l of r o t e l e a r n i n g to deeper a b s t r a c t and semantic l e v e l s . Retention i s viewed to be a f u n c t i o n of the l e v e l to which the i n f o r m a t i o n i s processed. Two examples of the dual process approach are P a i v i o ' s dual coding model (1971,1975), and the simultaneous and s u c c e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n g model d e s c r i b e d by Das et a_l. (1975,1979). Both models d e s c r i b e two separate but complementary c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g systems. While there are d i f f e r e n c e s i n how the c o n s t r u c t s are d e f i n e d i n each model, and although Kirby and Das (1976) have c r i t i c i z e d P a i v i o ' s (1975) d e f i n i t i o n s and r e s e a r c h methodology, P a i v i o (1976) has p o i n t e d out that the two approaches are very s i m i l a r . Both d i s t i n g u i s h between p a r a l l e l or simultaneous p r o c e s s i n g and s e q u e n t i a l or s u c c e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n g . The former r e f e r s to s y n t h e s i z i n g i n f o r m a t i o n in a g e s t a l t f a s h i o n , while the l a t t e r r e f e r s to p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n • i n temporal order. The dual process models are • s i m i l a r to the s i n g l e process models in that they d e s c r i b e a 6 h i e r a r c h y of l e v e l s w i t h i n each system. However, they are d i f f e r e n t from the s i n g l e process models in that the systems themselves are seen to f u n c t i o n independently of each other rather than being h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d . An important aspect of t h i s approach i s that i t i s assumed that r e t e n t i o n can be a f f e c t e d a d d i t i v e l y by the two systems. The d i s t i n c t i o n s between the s i n g l e process and dual process models which are of importance to the present study are in how the two approaches view the f u n c t i o n s of v e r b a l r e p e t i t i o n and p i c t u r e s i n f a c i l i t a t i n g l e a r n i n g . In the s i n g l e process models p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n are c o n s i d e r e d to be h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d with p i c t u r e s l e a d i n g to deeper p r o c e s s i n g than r e p e t i t i o n . R e p e t i t i o n i s viewed as a rote process which i s a l e s s h e l p f u l way of f a c i l i t a t i n g l e a r n i n g than other more meaningful semantic coding s t r a t e g i e s (e.g. Anderson,1972) such as the p r o v i s i o n of p i c t u r e s . In the dual process models the two kinds of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support are seen to f a c i l i t a t e two d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s i n g systems rather than d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of the same system. In other words p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n are seen to a i d l e a r n i n g i n separate ways. R e p e t i t i o n , being v e r b a l and s e q u e n t i a l , probably mainly i n v o l v e s s u c c e s s i v e or s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e s s i n g . P i c t u r e s , c o n s i s t i n g of images which can be p e r c e i v e d i n a g e s t a l t manner, probably mainly i n v o l v e simultaneous or p a r a l l e l p r o c e s s i n g (e.g. Das e t . al.,1979; P a i v i o , 1 9 7 1 ) . The two approaches to c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g have been compared in v e r b a l l e a r n i n g r e s e a r c h in which l i s t s of d i s c r e t e items are used. Which model i s supported appears to depend on 7 the experimental paradigm used. The r e s u l t s of. p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e experiments tend to favor a s i n g l e process model. T h i s i s because few d i f f e r e n c e s between the p r o v i s i o n of e i t h e r p i c t o r i a l or v e r b a l e l a b o r a t i o n s have been found (see Pressley, 1977; Reese , 1977; Rohwer,l973 for reviews) and because e l a b o r a t i o n has been found to be a much more e f f e c t i v e study a c t i v i t y than the g e n e r a l l y d e t r i m e n t a l s t r a t e g y of r e p e a t i n g the two items to be l e a r n e d . (e.g. Schnorr & Atkinson,1969; Yarmey & Barker, 197 1 ) . The r e s u l t s of other kinds of l i s t l e a r n i n g s t u d i e s have found evidence that can best be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n a dual process framework. In c o n t r a s t to p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e f i n d i n g s i t has c o n s i s t e n t l y been demonstrated that r e p e t i t i o n in f a c t a i d s f r e e and s e r i a l r e c a l l (see Nelson,1977; O r n s t e i n & Naus,l978 f o r r e v i e w s ) . There i s a l s o evidence that r e p e t i t i o n f a c i l i t a t e s r e c a l l independently of semantic e l a b o r a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s (Maki & S c h u l l e r , 1 9 8 0 ) . The main d i f f e r e n c e between the p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e and other l i s t l e a r n i n g paradigms i s in the type of task used to measure r e c a l l . P a i r e d a s s o c i a t e experiments use cued r e c a l l and other kinds of l i s t l e a r n i n g s t u d i e s use f r e e and s e r i a l r e c a l l as w e l l as cued r e c a l l . Since the r e s u l t s seem to vary a c c o r d i n g to which dependent v a r i a b l e i s used, i t seems important to use more than one task to measure r e c a l l when t e s t i n g hypotheses about the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t kinds of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support on l e a r n i n g . 8 O r a l Prose Learning Recently, v e r b a l l e a r n i n g r e s e a r c h e r s have begun to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s and f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n in l e a r n i n g from connected d i s c o u r s e . 1 At f i r s t the aim was simply to' demonstrate the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of r e p e t i t i o n (e.g. Ausubel & Yousef,l965) and p i c t u r e s (Lesgold, L e v i n , Shimron & Guttman,1975; L e v i n , et al.,1976; Rohwer & Harris,1975) as i n s t r u c t i o n a l a i d s . More r e c e n t l y , attempts have been made to d e s c r i b e the f u n c t i o n s of these a i d s i n prose r e c a l l (e.g. Brody & Legenza,1981; Duchastel,1980, Levin,1979; Ruch & Levin,1977). P i c t u r e s . Accompanying o r a l l y presented i n f o r m a t i o n with r e l e v a n t p i c t u r e s has c o n s i s t e n t l y been shown to improve c h i l d r e n ' s l e a r n i n g as measured by cued r e c a l l (see Fleming,1979; Levin,1979; Levin & Lesgold,1978; Pressley,1977 f o r r e v i ews). S i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s have been found with c h i l d r e n of v a r i o u s ages i n c l u d i n g students i n kindergarten (Dunham & Levin,1980; Guttman L e v i n & Pressley,1977), f i r s t grade ( Guttman et al.,1977; Lesgold, L e v i n , Shimron & Guttman,1975; Levin , Bender & Lesgold,1976), second grade (Purkel & Bornstein,1979; Guttman et al.,1975), t h i r d grade (Ruch & Levin,1977; Rustead & C o l t h e a r t , 1 9 7 9 ) , and f o u r t h grade (Levin & Berry, 1980; Rohwer & Harr i s , 1 975') . The use of p i c t u r e s has been found to f a c i l i t a t e the f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l of grade two c h i l d r e n when short s t o r i e s are used but not when long s t o r i e s are used (Lesgold et al.,1976). R e p e t i t i o n . The e f f e c t s of r e p e t i t i o n on l e a r n i n g from prose have r e c e i v e d l i m i t e d i n t e r e s t in comparison to the l a r g e l i t e r a t u r e a v a i l a b l e on the e f f e c t s of r e p e t i t i o n and r e h e a r s a l 9 on l e a r n i n g p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s and s e r i a l l i s t s . T h i s may be because much of the r e s e a r c h with meaningful m a t e r i a l i s e d u c a t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d . I t seems that educators have accepted the assumed connection between r e p e t i t i o n and r o t e l e a r n i n g (e.g. Anderson,1972) and so there i s more i n t e r e s t in other kinds of l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . However, the few s t u d i e s that have been done demonstrate that r e p e t i t i o n , does f a c i l i t a t e prose l e a r n i n g . S i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of . both overt and c o v e r t r e p e t i t i o n on both cued and f r e e r e c a l l have been found with a d u l t s (e.g. Ausubel & Yousef,l965; DiVesta & Grey,1972; King & Cotton,1969). Overt r e p e t i t i o n has a l s o been found to f a c i l i t a t e the f r e e r e c a l l of grade two c h i l d r e n (Petros & Hoving,1980). While co v e r t r e h e a r s a l i n s t r u c t i o n s have not been found to a f f e c t the r e c a l l of k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n on e i t h e r cued r e c a l l (Dunham & Levin,1980) or f r e e r e c a l l ( T r a v i s & White,1979), Dunham and L e v i n (1980) found that overt r e p e t i t i o n f a c i l i t a t e d cued r e c a l l i n t h i s age group. P i c t u r e s Versus R e p e t i t i o n . The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed to t h i s p o i n t has simply demonstrated that both p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n f a c i l i t a t e o r a l prose r e c a l l . Attempts to d e s c r i b e the f u n c t i o n s of the two a i d s by s p e c i f i c a l l y comparing t h e i r e f f e c t s w i l l now be d i s c u s s e d . L e v i n et. a l . (1976) found that while both a i d s helped grade one c h i l d r e n ' s r e c a l l i n comparison to a c o n t r o l group on verbatim cued r e c a l l , p i c t u r e s were more f a c i l i t a t i v e than r e p e t i t i o n . Ruch and L e v i n (1977) found t h a t , f o r grade three c h i l d r e n , p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n both f a c i l i t a t e d the answering 10 of verbatim cued r e c a l l quest ions, but only p i c t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e d paraphrased cued r e c a l l . In a study with mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n Bender and L e v i n (1978) found that p i c t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e d the answering of both verbatim and paraphrased que s t i o n s while r e p e t i t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s on e i t h e r measure. Dunham and L e v i n (1979) reported that p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n were e q u a l l y more e f f e c t i v e than imagery i n s t r u c t i o n s , covert r e h e a r s a l i n s t r u c t i o n s or c o n t r o l i n s t r u c t i o n s on the verbatim cued r e c a l l of kindergarten c h i l d r e n . S i l v e r n (1980) found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a p i c t u r e c o n d i t i o n , a r e p e t i t i o n c o n d i t i o n , and a c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n on a verbatim cued r e c a l l measure i n a study with k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n . The d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s of performance found by Bender and L e v i n (1976), Levin et a l . (1976), and Ruch and Levin (1977) when comparing p i c t u r e s to r e p e t i t i o n i n d i c a t e that a "simple r e h e a r s a l " hypothesis i s not s u f f i c i e n t to account f o r the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s on prose. Instead Ruch and Levin (1977) proposed that p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d with p i c t u r e s p r o v i d i n g something more than r e p e t i t i o n . They argued that r e h e a r s a l i s h e l p f u l in that i t provides more exposure to the s u r f a c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the passage, r e s u l t i n g in b e t t e r p h o n o l o g i c a l - a c o u s t i c encoding. However, p i c t u r e s are even more h e l p f u l because they provide an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context i n which the i n f o r m a t i o n can be more deeply processed. More r e c e n t l y L e v i n (1979) proposed that p i c t u r e s have s e v e r a l f u n c t i o n s i n c l u d i n g : r e i t e r a t i o n , represent i o n , o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n 11 of i n f o r m a t i o n . Within, t h i s l i s t the r e i t e r a t i o n (or r e p e t i t i o n ) f u n c t i o n of p i c t u r e s i s viewed as being l e s s u s e f u l than the other f u n c t i o n s mentioned. Levin (1979) a s s e r t s that none of these f u n c t i o n s are unique to p i c t u r e s but i n s t e a d are c o n s i d e r e d t o be general s t r a t e g i e s f o r improving c h i l d r e n ' s prose l e a r n i n g . These general s t r a t e g i e s are a l s o c o n s i d e r e d to subsume v e r b a l a c t i v i t i e s such as r e p e t i t i o n . , q u e s t i o n answering and p a r a p h r a s i n g . In essence, L e v i n ' s (1979) taxonomy i s a s i n g l e process approach i n which p i c t u r e s are seen to provide something more than, r a t h e r than something d i f f e r e n t from r e p e t i t i o n . An a l t e r n a t e hypothesis e x p l a i n i n g these f i n d i n g s i s that the d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s of performance found between p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n on cued r e c a l l occur because the two i n s t r u c t i o n a l a i d s serve independent rather than h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s i n f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . P o s s i b l y r e p e t i t i o n i s not" simply l e s s f a c i l i t a t i v e than p i c t u r e s but i s a c t u a l l y f a c i l i t a t i v e i n some d i f f e r e n t but e q u a l l y important ways. These hypotheses are both p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s of how p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n f u n c t i o n i n f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g because both can account f o r the f i n d i n g s of research to date. To d i s c r i m i n a t e between the two hypotheses, research examining the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n used both alone and i n combination on r e t r i e v a l tasks other than cued r e c a l l i s needed. 1 2 R e c a l l Measures There are two common methods of measuring prose r e c a l l but they are seldom both used i n the same study. With very few exceptions (e.g. Lesgold, DeGood & Levin,1977; Rohwer & Harris,1975) the tendency has been to use e i t h e r cued r e c a l l (e.g. L esgold, L e v i n , Shimron & Guttman , 1 975; S i Ivern , 1 980)., or f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l (e.g. Cummins & Mulcahy, 1979; Mandler & Johnson,1977; Petros & Hoving,l980; T r a v i s & White,1979). In cued r e c a l l the subject i s asked verbatim (verbatim cued r e c a l l ) or paraphrased (paraphrased cued r e c a l l ) q u e s t i o n s about the p r e v i o u s l y presented m a t e r i a l . In f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l the subject i s i n s t r u c t e d to r e c a l l e v e r y t h i n g s/he can about the p r e v i o u s l y presented m a t e r i a l . Previous s t u d i e s comparing the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s to r e p e t i t i o n i n a i d i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g have only used cued r e c a l l as a dependent v a r i a b l e (e.g. Bender & Levin,1978; Dunham & Levin,1980; L e v i n , Bender & Lesgold,1976; Ruch & Levin,1977). (In f a c t , L e v i n e_t §_1 . (1976) attempted to e l i c i t f r e e r e c a l l as w e l l as cued r e c a l l from the c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r study but because a f l o o r e f f e c t was produced only the cued r e c a l l r e s u l t s were analyzed.) Researchers have found d i f f e r e n c e s in r e c a l l p a t t e r n s when comparing the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n on cued r e c a l l measures (e.g. Ruch & Levin,1977). D i f f e r e n c e s in r e c a l l p a t t e r n s were a l s o expected to occur when p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n were compared on fre e s t o r y r e c a l l . The two r e c a l l measures that were used i n t h i s study are paraphrased cued r e c a l l and f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l . Paraphrased cued r e c a l l c o n s i s t s of q u e s t i o n s which are r e l a t e d to the o r i g i n a l l y 13 presented m a t e r i a l i n meaning but u n r e l a t e d with' respect to the a c t u a l words used. Although the q u e s t i o n s convey the meaning of the sentences in the study m a t e r i a l , they do not have any su b s t a n t i v e words in common. Instead they c o n s i s t of l e x i c a l (or paradigmatic) a s s o c i a t i o n s (Anderson,1972). T h i s task was chosen ra t h e r than verbatim cued r e c a l l , i n which the quest i o n s asked use the same words as were used i n the study m a t e r i a l , p a r t l y i n an attempt to make the task more d i f f i c u l t and so a v o i d a p o s s i b l e c e i l i n g e f f e c t , and p a r t l y because re s e a r c h e r s f a v o r i n g s i n g l e process frameworks and r e s e a r c h e r s f a v o r i n g dual process models have d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s on the demands of paradigmatic tasks as d i s c u s s e d below. In sh o r t , i t was f e l t to be a more d i f f i c u l t and t h e o r e t i c a l l y more i n t e r e s t i n g task than verbatim cued r e c a l l . While both paraphrased cued r e c a l l and free s t o r y r e c a l l tasks have been used to measure l e a r n i n g from o r a l prose, they are very d i f f e r e n t kinds of procedures. Paraphrased cued r e c a l l i s a l e x i c a l paradigmatic task while f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l ' i s a s e q u e n t i a l task which has s y n t a c t i c , and s e r i a l o r d e r i n g as w e l l as l e x i c a l demands. S i n g l e process and dual process t h e o r i s t s have d i f f e r e n t views on the demands of paraphrased cued r e c a l l and f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l . According to at l e a s t one s i n g l e process t h e o r i s t (Anderson,1972), paraphrased cued r e c a l l r e q u i r e s deeper p r o c e s s i n g than f r e e r e c a l l because the former can only be s u c c e s s f u l l y completed i f the stimulus m a t e r i a l was comprehended, while i t i s p o s s i b l e that the l a t t e r c o u l d be s u c c e s s f u l l y completed through rote memory s t r a t e g i e s . There i s , however, no evidence supporting t h i s s u ggestion. In f a c t , f r e e .14. st o r y r e c a l l i s a c t u a l l y a more d i f f i c u l t task than cued r e c a l l , e s p e c i a l l y f o r young c h i l d r e n (A.Brown,1975) because the, subject i s r e q u i r e d to produce sentences and organize r e c a l l without cues. While L e v i n e_t a_l. (1976) q u e s t i o n the v a l i d i t y of using fre e s t o r y r e c a l l to measure young c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l prose l e a r n i n g , other researchers have found that although f r e e r e c a l l i s d i f f i c u l t , most young c h i l d r e n are able to perform t h i s task adequately enough to measure d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance between su b j e c t s (e.g. Mandler & Johnson,1977; S t e i n & Glenn,1977; T r a v i s & White,1979). According to the dual process models, l e x i c a l , paradigmatic tasks mainly i n v o l v e p a r a l l e l or simultaneous p r o c e s s i n g while s y n t a c t i c , s e q u e n t i a l tasks mainly i n v o l v e s e q u e n t i a l or su c c e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n g ( Pa i v i o , 1 97 1 , 1 975 ; Das e_t a l . , 1 979 ) . Several s t u d i e s provide e m p i r i c a l support f o r t h i s s u ggestion. Cummins (1978) and Jarman (1980) have found that l e x i c a l and paradigmatic tasks are c o r r e l a t e d with a simultaneous f a c t o r . Cummins (1978), Cummins and Mulcahy (1979) and Jarman (1980) have found that s y n t a c t i c a l tasks are r e l a t e d to s u c c e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n g . Summary In summary, there are two p l a u s i b l e hypotheses about how p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n f u n c t i o n to f a c i l i t a t e o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . The hypothesis proposed by Ruch and L e v i n (1977), which i s based on Craik and Lockhart's (1972) s i n g l e process model of memory, suggests that p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n serve h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s . T h i s i m p l i e s that any e f f e c t 1 5 r e p e t i t i o n has on o r a l prose l e a r n i n g i s encompassed in the more f a c i l i t a t i v e f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s . The a l t e r n a t i v e h ypothesis, which i s based on dual process models of c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g , (e.g. Das et aT.,1979; P a i v i o , 1 9 7 l ) proposes that the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n are independent from each other and t h e r e f o r e f a c i l i t a t e o r a l prose l e a r n i n g in d i f f e r e n t ways.. In r e s e a r c h examining ways of f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g , both p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n have been found to be u s e f u l i n s t r u c t i o n a l a i d s . In s t u d i e s which have compared the e f f e c t s of the two a i d s on cued r e c a l l , the p r o v i s i o n of p i c t u r e s has been found to be a more e f f e c t i v e form of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support than the p r o v i s i o n of r e p e t i t i o n . T h i s has been i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n a s i n g l e , continuous process framework as i n d i c a t i n g that p i c t u r e s provide something more than r e p e t i t i o n . However, an a l t e r n a t i v e hypothesis i s that p i c t u r e s may provide something d i f f e r e n t than r e p e t i t i o n . If so a dual process framework would provide a b e t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n than can be d e s c r i b e d w i t h i n a s i n g l e process model.. The two hypotheses l e a d to d i f f e r e n t p r e d i c t i o n s about the e f f e c t s on cued and f r e e r e c a l l of using p i c t u r e s , r e p e t i t i o n , or a combination of the two a i d s when p r e s e n t i n g o r a l i n f o r m a t i o n to c h i l d r e n . If the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d then p i c t u r e by r e p e t i t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n s would be p r e d i c t e d on both paraphrased cued r e c a l l and f r e e r e c a l l measures. According to t h i s f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s , any r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t s found would be smaller that any p i c t o r i a l e f f e c t s because p i c t u r e s are more f a c i l i t a t i v e than r e p e t i t i o n . F u r t h e r , using the two a i d s together would not be expected to be 1 6 any more e f f e c t i v e than using p i c t u r e s alone. For these reasons, i n t e r a c t i o n s such that the r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t s form part of the more powerful p i c t u r e e f f e c t s are p r e d i c t e d by t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . I f , however, p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n have independent f u n c t i o n s then using p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n would be expected to r e s u l t in separate a d d i t i v e main e f f e c t s . The use of p i c t u r e s would be expected to mainly f a c i l i t a t e the l e x i c a l a s pects of r e c a l l such as those tapped by paraphrased cued r e c a l l and the semantic i n f o r m a t i o n r e c a l l e d i n f r e e r e c a l l . The use of r e p e t i t i o n would be expected to mainly a f f e c t s e r i a l order and s y n t a c t i c complexity i n f r e e r e c a l l . F u r t h e r , i f p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n make independent c o n t r i b u t i o n s to o r a l prose l e a r n i n g , then using both a i d s together would be expected to be more e f f e c t i v e than using e i t h e r a i d alone. Thus main e f f e c t s and no i n t e r a c t i o n s are p r e d i c t e d by t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . The purpose of the present study was to determine which of these two hypotheses i s the most u s e f u l way to d e s c r i b e the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n in f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . Method Subjects The study was conducted with 32 grade one c h i l d r e n from a school i n a small town on Vancouver I s l a n d , B.C. (School 1), and r e p l i c a t e d with 32 grade one c h i l d r e n from a school i n a r u r a l community on Vancouver I s l a n d , B. C. (School 2). In School 1 there were s e v e r a l grade one c h i l d r e n who spoke E n g l i s h as a 17 second language, and s e v e r a l n a t i v e Indian c h i l d r e n . The c h i l d r e n who spoke E n g l i s h as a second language were excluded from the study. The n a t i v e Indian c h i l d r e n were i n c l u d e d . T h i s age group was chosen because young c h i l d r e n do not spontaneously use imagery or co v e r t r e p e t i t i o n to f a c i l i t a t e prose l e a r n i n g (e.g. Dunham & Levin,1980), and so i t seemed p o s s i b l e to measure the e f f e c t s ' of e x p e r i m e n t a l l y manipulating p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n with assurance that the r e s u l t s would not be confounded with subject generated covert s t r a t e g i e s . The c h i l d r e n were randomly a s s i g n e d to the experimental c o n d i t i o n s . Design and M a t e r i a l s F a c t o r s . P i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n were orthogonal f a c t o r s , i n a completely randomized m u l t i - v a r i a t e design. There were two l e v e l s of p i c t u r e s : a) no p i c t u r e s provided, b) p i c t u r e s p r o v i d e d , and two l e v e l s of r e p e t i t i o n : a) no r e p e t i t i o n p r o v i d e d , b) r e p e t i t i o n p r o v i d e d . The four r e s u l t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s were 1) no p i c t u r e s , no r e p e t i t i o n c o n t r o l , 2) r e p e t i t i o n p rovided, 3) p i c t u r e s provided, 4) p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n combined. Since i n i t i a l analyses i n d i c a t e d the school p o p u l a t i o n s were d i f f e r e n t , the e f f e c t s of these i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatments were examined s e p a r a t e l y w i t h i n each s c h o o l . S t o r i e s . Two n a r r a t i v e passages of ten sentences each which were developed by Guttman (Guttman,1975) were presented on tape by a female speaker at the rate of one sentence per ten seconds. There was a ten second pause f o l l o w i n g each sentence. During t h i s pause the a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatment was 18 a d m i n i s t e r e d . C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d an u n f i l l e d pause. R e p e t i t i o n s u b j e c t s l i s t e n e d to a r e p e t i t i o n of the previous sentence. P i c t u r e s u b j e c t s viewed a p i c t u r e of the previous sentence. S u b j e c t s i n the combined i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n viewed a . p i c t u r e and l i s t e n e d to a r e p e t i t i o n of the previous sentence. The p i c t u r e s used were c o l o r e d l i n e drawings which were a l s o developed by Guttman (1975). There are ten p i c t u r e s f o r each s t o r y with one p i c t u r e corresponding to each sentence. Each c h i l d heard both s t o r i e s . The order of s t o r y p r e s e n t a t i o n was counterbalanced across s u b j e c t s . R e c a l l Measures. There were two methods used to measure l e a r n i n g : paraphrased cued r e c a l l and f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l . The paraphrased cued r e c a l l task c o n s i s t e d of two sets of ten q u e s t i o n s developed by Ruch and Levin (1977) in accordance with Anderson's (1972) r u l e s f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g paraphrase q u e s t i o n s . There was one set of q u e s t i o n s f o r each s t o r y . Each q u e s t i o n asked f o r i n f o r m a t i o n presented i n one of the sentences. Questions were asked in the same temporal order as the sentences had been presented in the s t o r y . The f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l task was a v a r i a t i o n of the procedure developed by T r a v i s and White (1979) in which s u b j e c t s are asked to t e l l e v e r y t h i n g they can remember about the s t o r y . T r a v i s and White's (1979) procedure was v a r i e d by using a puppet as a prop because B u l l o c k (Note 1) suggests using a puppet or a d o l l who i s absent d u r i n g s t o r y p r e s e n t a t i o n i n order to encourage more complete r e c a l l i n young c h i l d r e n . The c h i l d r e n i n the present study were asked to t e l l the s t o r y they had j u s t heard to a puppet who had been "asleep" i n an attempt to encourage d e t a i l e d 19 r e c a l l r a t h e r than just, a summary of the s t o r y (see Appendix A). Each c h i l d , r e c e i v e d both r e c a l l measures, one measure f o r each s t o r y . The order of measurement was counterbalanced across s u b j e c t s . Procedure C h i l d r e n were t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y in a small room at t h e i r s c h o o l . C h i l d r e n were given i d e n t i c a l i n s t r u c t i o n s except that r e p e t i t i o n s u b j e c t s were t o l d they would hear each sentence twice, and p i c t u r e s u b j e c t s were asked to pay a t t e n t i o n to the p i c t u r e s that went with the s t o r y . F o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , a one-sentence p r a c t i c e " s t o r y " and r e c a l l task were presented in the manner a p p r o p r i a t e to the c o n d i t i o n the c h i l d was i n . Then the f i r s t s t o r y was presented. A f t e r the c h i l d heard the f i r s t s t o r y , e i t h e r f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l or paraphrased cued r e c a l l was measured. Next, a second one-sentence " s t o r y " and a p p r o p r i a t e r e c a l l task were presented f o r p r a c t i c e . Then the c h i l d l i s t e n e d to the second s t o r y . F o l l o w i n g t h i s s t o r y the second r e c a l l task was admin i s t e r e d . The e n t i r e procedure took twenty minutes per c h i l d (see Appendix B). Free s t o r y r e c a l l was tape recorded and l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d f o r s c o r i n g . Two c h i l d r e n who were unable to do the p r a c t i c e r e c a l l t asks (one c h i l d from each school) and two c h i l d r e n who were i n t e r r u p t e d d u r i n g f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l (one c h i l d from each school) were r e p l a c e d by other s u b j e c t s . 20 R e s u l t s Four dependent v a r i a b l e s were used in the m u l t i - v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . The paraphrased cued r e c a l l task y i e l d e d one measure and the f r e e r e c a l l task y i e l d e d three measures. T h e i r names and the order i n which they were entered i n t o the a n a l y s i s were: . paraphrased cued r e c a l l , semantic r e c a l l (Information Unit Sc o r e ) , s y n t a c t i c complexity (Mean Length of U t t e r a n c e ) , and s e r i a l order of r e c a l l . The e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n •on these dependent v a r i a b l e s were analyzed w i t h i n each school using the Roy-Bargman Step-down F t e s t (Bock,1975). I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the above s c o r i n g procedures was c a l c u l a t e d by g i v i n g s c o r i n g d i r e c t i o n s to a second judge and having him score a random sample of ten p r o t o c o l s . I n t e r -r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s were a l l above -.94 (see Appendix C ) . Paraphrased Gued R e c a l l The procedure used by Ruch and L e v i n (1977) was employed in the present study to score paraphrased cued r e c a l l . 2 Each q u e s t i o n was worth one p o i n t . Each answer was scored as c o r r e c t (1) p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t (.5), or i n c o r r e c t (0). The mean paraphrased cued r e c a l l scores are presented i n Table 1. A main e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s on paraphrased cued r e c a l l was found i n School 1 ( u n i v a r i a t e F (1,56)=5.90,_ p=0.0l8; Step-down F=5.12, p_=0.028). In t h i s s c h o o l , c h i l d r e n who viewed p i c t u r e s while l i s t e n i n g to s t o r i e s answered s i g n i f i c a n t l y more que s t i o n s c o r r e c t l y than c h i l d r e n who d i d not view p i c t u r e s . Although t h i s e f f e c t d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e i n School 2 at 21 Table 1 Paraphrased Cued R e c a l l : Mean Number of C o r r e c t Answers as a Function of I n s t r u c t i o n a l C o n d i t i o n School 1 School .2 CONDITION No P i c . P i c t u r e Mean No Repet. 4.19 6.8.1/ 5.50 R e p e t i t i o n 5.88 6.88 6.38 Mean 5.03 6.84 5.94 No P i c . P i c t u r e Mean 6.00 6.88 6.43 6.13 7.94 7.03 6.06 7.40 6.73 the 0.05 l e v e l i t approached s i g n i f i c a n c e ( U n i v a r i a t e F ( 1 ,56)=3.29_j_ p=0.075; Step-down F = 3 . 34 ,_ p=0 . 070 ) and the means were i n the expected d i r e c t i o n . Semantic R e c a l l A s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n of the i n f o r m a t i o n a l u n i t s procedure developed by S t e i n & Glenn (1975) was used to measure the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n r e c a l l e d . 3 The s t o r i e s were d i v i d e d i n t o i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s c o n t a i n i n g one verb each. Each u n i t roughly corresponds to a p r o p o s i t i o n , or a simple sentence. I n i t i a l i n t e r - r a t e r agreement about how the s t o r i e s should be d i v i d e d was 85%. A l l d i f f e r e n c e s were r e s o l v e d by d i s c u s s i o n between the two judges. The c h i l d r e n ' s p r o t o c o l s were examined f o r the presence or absence of these i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s . Each i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t was scored as c o r r e c t (1), i f the c h i l d had r e c a l l e d the verb and at l e a s t one noun. If the c h i l d r e c a l l e d only the verb, or only the nominal i n f o r m a t i o n , then the u n i t was scored as p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t (.5). If no in f o r m a t i o n from that u n i t was 22 r e c a l l e d , i t was scored as absent (0). The t a b l e of means f o r semantic r e c a l l i s presented i n Table 2. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores on t h i s measure was f a i r l y Table 2 Semantic R e c a l l : Mean Number of Information U n i t s R e c a l l e d as a Function of I n s t r u c t i o n a l C o n d i t i o n School 1 CONDITION No P i c . P i c t u r e Mean No Repet. 7.94 10.63 9.28 Repet i t i on 8.13 7.88 8.00 Mean 8.03 9.25 8.64 School 2 No P i c . P i c t u r e Mean 6.06 7.62 6.84 1.0.31 8. 56 9.44 8.19 8.09 8. 14 f l a t with a wide standard d e v i a t i o n (3.93). The mean was 8.39, with a range from 2/26 to 17/26. No s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s or i n t e r a c t i o n s between kind of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support were found on t h i s measure. However, i n school 2, the d i f f e r e n c e between c h i l d r e n who had r e p e t i t i o n and c h i l d r e n who d i d not have r e p e t i t i o n approached s i g n i f i c a n c e . In t h i s school c h i l d r e n who had r e p e t i t i o n tended to score higher on the t o t a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e c a l l e d than c h i l d r e n who d i d not hear the sentences repeated ( U n i v a r i a t e and Step-down F (1,56)=3.54 x p=0.065). S y n t a c t i c R e c a l l * Since utterance l e n g t h i s h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with s y n t a c t i c complexity (e.g. R.Brown,1973) mean length of utt e r a n c e (MLU) was used as an index of syn t a c t i c , complexity. The procedure f o l l o w e d was the system used by Tyack and Go t t s l e b e n (1974) to 23 o b t a i n the mean number of words r e c a l l e d per utterance when s c o r i n g language samples. The t o t a l number of words was d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of u t t e r a n c e s . The mean MLU scores are presented i n Table. 3. A main e f f e c t .Table 3 Mean Length of Utterance: Mean MLU as a Fun 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 School 1 School 2 CONDITION No P i c . P i c t u r e Mean No Repet. 7.51 6.85 7 . 1 8 Repet i t i on 7.24 7.30 7.27 Mean 7.38 7.07 7.23 No P i c . P i c t u r e Mean 5.30 6. 1 1 5.70. 8.07 8.35 8.21 6.69 7.23 6.96 of r e p e t i t i o n was found in School 2 ( U n i v a r i a t e F (1,56)=9.01, 2=0.004; Step-down F= 7 . 5 1 , £=.008). T h i s e f f e c t was not r e p l i c a t e d i n School 1 ( U n i v a r i a t e F ( 1 , 56) =0 . 0 11 _j_ p=0.92; Step-down F ( 1 , 56 ) =0 . 03j_ p=0.86). No main e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s and no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n was found in e i t h e r s c h o o l . S e r i a l Order of R e c a l l In measuring r e c a l l , the order i n which the in f o r m a t i o n i s r e c a l l e d i n d i c a t e s the a b i l i t y of the sub j e c t s to remember the temporal order i n which the s t o r y was t o l d . It was important to develop a procedure in which s e r i a l order of r e c a l l was not confounded with amount r e c a l l e d . Lee (Note 2) recommended a s c o r i n g procedure i n which the t o t a l number of i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s 24 that were r e c a l l e d or p a r t l y r e c a l l e d by a subject was used to c a l c u l a t e the highest s e r i a l order score p o s s i b l e f o r that i n d i v i d u a l . For example, i f a subject r e c a l l e d f i v e i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s , h i s / h e r highest p o s s i b l e s e r i a l order score would be 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10. If a subject r e c a l l e d ten. i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s , h i s / h e r highest p o s s i b l e s e r i a l order score would be 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 45. Next the a c t u a l order i n which the s u b j e c t r e c a l l e d each u n i t was compared to the order in which the sentences had o r i g i n a l l y been presented. For example, a c h i l d who r e c a l l e d three i n f o r m a t i o n u n i t s would score 3/3 i f the u n i t s were r e c a l l e d i n the order 1-2-3. S/he would score 2/3 i f the u n i t s were r e c a l l e d i n the order 1-3-2, or 2-1-3. S/he would score 1/3 i f the u n i t s were r e c a l l e d in the order 3-1-2 or 2-3-1. S/he would score 0/3 i f the u n i t s were r e c a l l e d in the Table 4 S e r i a l Order of R e c a l l : Mean Scores as a Function of I n s t r u c t i o n a l C o n d i t i o n School 1 CONDITION No P i c . P i c t u r e Mean No Repet. 0.84 0.68 0.76 R e p e t i t i o n 0.81 0.70 0.76 Mean 0.82 0.69 0.76 School 2 No P i c . P i c t u r e Mean 0.61 0.73 0.67 0.77 0.73 0.75 0.69 0.74 0.71 order 3-2-1. In t h i s way s e r i a l order scores were generated f o r a l l s u b j e c t s . The scores were then converted to percentages and transformed with an a r c s i n e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n (Kirk,1968) so that they c o u l d be compared with the other s u b j e c t s . The c e l l means obtained on s e r i a l order of r e c a l l ar-e 25 presented in Table 4. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores on t h i s measure was extremely v a r i e d (Standard Deviation=.27;Range=.03-1.00). No s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s or i n t e r a c t i o n s were found. Di s c u s s i on The r e s u l t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n terms of t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , methodological l i m i t a t i o n s and e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s The main purpose of t h i s study was to determine whether the f u n c t i o n s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n i n f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y or independently r e l a t e d . The hypothesis that the f u n c t i o n s of the two a i d s are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d l e d to the p r e d i c t i o n that i n t e r a c t i o n s between p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n on both cued and f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l would occur. The hypothesis that p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n have independent f u n c t i o n s l e d to the p r e d i c t i o n that main e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and main e f f e c t s of r e p e t i t i o n would occur on both measures. No i n t e r a c t i o n s between i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatments were found on any of the four dependent v a r i a b l e s which were analyzed. A main e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s on paraphrased c u e d . r e c a l l was found i n one school and a main e f f e c t of r e p e t i t i o n on MLU was found in the other s c h o o l , but none of these e f f e c t s h e l d up across s c h o o l s . The main e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s i n School 1 m e r i t s s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n c e t h i s e f f e c t d i d approach s i g n i f i c a n c e in School 2 and in f a c t i t appears that a c e i l i n g e f f e c t occured i n 26 t h i s school on the paraphrased cued r e c a l l task. Therefore i t can be c a u t i o u s l y concluded that the p r o v i s i o n of p i c t u r e s d i d f a c i l i t a t e performance on paraphrased cued r e c a l l while the p r o v i s i o n of r e p e t i t i o n had no e f f e c t . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h i s f i n d i n g i n i t s e l f does not enable one to d i s t i n g u i s h between the two hypotheses. Since r e p e t i t i o n had no e f f e c t at a l l on t h i s measure i t i s impossible to meaningfully say whether p i c t u r e s provided something more than or something d i f f e r e n t from r e p e t i t i o n . In r e l a t i n g t h i s r e s u l t to Ruch and Levin's (1977) f i n d i n g s about the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n on the paraphrased cued r e c a l l of grade three c h i l d r e n i t i s apparent that t h i s study has r e p l i c a t e d t h e i r r e s u l t s with a younger group of c h i l d r e n . Ruch and Levin (1977) found that c h i l d r e n who r e c e i v e d r e p e t i t i o n d i d no b e t t e r than the c o n t r o l group on paraphrased cued r e c a l l while c h i l d r e n who viewed p i c t u r e s d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than both groups. The cued r e c a l l task that was f a c i l i t a t e d by both r e p e t i t i o n and p i c t u r e s was verbatim cued r e c a l l . Since both i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatments have been found to a f f e c t r e c a l l on t h i s measure t h i s would have been a b e t t e r task to use i n attempting to determine whether p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y or independently r e l a t e d . In f u t u r e r e s e a r c h verbatim cued r e c a l l should be i n c l u d e d as a dependent measure while attempts are made to make the task d i f f i c u l t enough that a c e i l i n g e f f e c t does not occur. At present the main e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s without a r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t or a i n t e r a c t i o n can be adequately e x p l a i n e d by e i t h e r a s i n g l e process or a dual process model. The s i n g l e process 27 e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s e f f e c t i s that the r e c a l l task i n v o l v e s deep p r o c e s s i n g . Since p i c t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e performance on t h i s r e c a l l task, t h i s i n d i c a t e s that p i c t u r e s l e a d to deep p r o c e s s i n g . The dual.process e x p l a n a t i o n i s that the paraphrased cued r e c a l l task i n v o l v e s simultaneous p r o c e s s i n g . Since p i c t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e performance o n . t h i s measure, t h i s i n d i c a t e s that p i c t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e simultaneous p r o c e s s i n g . Thus, while t h i s r e s u l t r e p l i c a t e s p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , i t does not enable any d i s t i n c t i o n to be made between the two hypotheses. Although the r e s u l t s on paraphrased cued r e c a l l i n themselves do not enable any c o n c l u s i o n s to be drawn about the two hypotheses, i f c o n s i d e r e d in c o n j u n c t i o n with the f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l r e s u l t s some t e n t a t i v e p o s s i b i l i t i e s can be presented. These c o n c l u s i o n s are t e n t a t i v e because there were few s i g n i f i c a n t f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l r e s u l t s . P i c t u r e s had no e f f e c t on any of the f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l measures and there i s only weak evidence that r e p e t i t i o n f a c i l i t a t e d performance on t h i s task. In School 2 c h i l d r e n who r e c e i v e d r e p e t i t i o n tended to score b e t t e r on semantic r e c a l l than c h i l d r e n who d i d not r e c e i v e r e p e t i t i o n . However, since t h i s e f f e c t d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e at the 0.05 l e v e l and s i n c e i t was not r e p l i c a t e d in school 1 , t h i s f i n d i n g only i n d i c a t e s a need for f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h perhaps with a more s e n s i t i v e measure. The only other s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g was a main e f f e c t of r e p e t i t i o n on the MLU of c h i l d r e n in School 2. In t h i s s c h o o l , c h i l d r e n i n the r e p e t i t i o n c o n d i t i o n s used longer and presumably more complex ut t e r a n c e s while r e c a l l i n g the s t o r i e s than c h i l d r e n i n the other c o n d i t i o n s . That there was a main e f f e c t of r e p e t i t i o n on 28 mean l e n g t h of utterance i n one school p r o v i d e s some i n d i c a t i o n that the r e p e t i t i o n may f a c i l i t a t e the s y n t a c t i c aspects of o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . However/ s i n c e the e f f e c t d i d not hold up across schools, i t would appear that e i t h e r t h e r e . a r e . d i f f e r e n c e s between the p o p u l a t i o n s of school 1 and school 2 that have not been accounted f o r , or the s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of r e p e t i t i o n found in School 2 occurred by chance. Again, t h i s i n d i c a t e s that more r e s e a r c h i s needed i n order to examine the r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t more f u l l y . Keeping i n mind that the evidence i s weak, i t appears that when r e p e t i t i o n has an e f f e c t i t i s to f a c i l i t a t e s y n t a c t i c complexity. T h i s f i n d i n g , along with the f i n d i n g that p i c t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e the answering of paraphrase q u e s t i o n s , provides some i n d i c a t i o n that p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n have independent rather than h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s . P i c t u r e s appear to f a c i l i t a t e semantic encoding of o r a l prose while r e p e t i t i o n may f a c i l i t a t e s y n t a c t i c encoding. T h i s argument i s c o n s i s t e n t with evidence from dual process r e s e a r c h which i n d i c a t e s that paradigmatic aspects of language and s y n t a c t i c aspects of language d i f f e r e n t kinds of p r o c e s s i n g . T h i s argument could perhaps be countered by attempting to order s y n t a c t i c and semantic p r o c e s s i n g i n a s i n g l e process of p r o g r e s s i v e l y deeper l e v e l s of encoding. However, as both syntax and semantics are i n t e g r a l and important aspects of language (e.g.Bloom & Lahey,l978; Dale,1972), and as an o r d i n a l o r d e r i n g of s t r u c t u r a l and semantic p r o c e s s i n g has yet to be developed (Nelson,1977) i t seems more v a l i d to d e s c r i b e semantics and syntax as nominally rather than h i e r a r c h i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . 29 To be more c o n s i s t e n t with a dual process model, r e p e t i t i o n should have f a c i l i t a t e d performance on other s e q u e n t i a l aspects of s t o r y r e c a l l such as s e r i a l order, and p i c t u r e s should have f a c i l i t a t e d performance on semantic r e c a l l . However, there was no evidence f o r t h i s i n the present study. Thus, the suggestion that r e p e t i t i o n may f a c i l i t a t e the s y n t a c t i c p r o c e s s i n g combined with the f i n d i n g that p i c t u r e s f a c i l i t a t e performance on paraphrased cued r e c a l l , p r o v i d e s only t e n t a t i v e support for the hypothesis that p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n have independent r a t h e r than h i e r a r c h i c a l l y r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s i n f a c i l i t a t i n g o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l L i m i t a t i o n s The study was l i m i t e d by the dependent measures used. The skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores on paraphrased cued r e c a l l i n d i c a t e s that there was a c e i l i n g e f f e c t on t h i s measure and the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s on f r e e s t o r y . r e c a l l i n d i c a t e s that t h i s measure i s not s e n s i t i v e to p i c t u r e and r e p e t i t i o n treatment e f f e c t s . The c e i l i n g e f f e c t on paraphrased cued r e c a l l may account f o r the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of p i c t u r e s on cued r e c a l l i n School 2. Perhaps a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e would have occured i f the task had been more d i f f i c u l t . In previous research using these s t o r i e s , both s t o r i e s were presented before r e c a l l was measured (e.g. L e v i n e_t a_l. , 1976; Ruch & Levin,1977). In the present study, r e c a l l was measured a f t e r each s t o r y both so that each s u b j e c t c o u l d be t e s t e d on both cued and f r e e r e c a l l , and so that a f l o o r e f f e c t on f r e e r e c a l l , as was found by Levin et a_l.(l976), would be avoided. Since f r e e 30 r e c a l l i s a more d i f f i c u l t task than cued r e c a l l i t i s d i f f i c u l t to f i n d stimulus m a t e r i a l s that w i l l r e s u l t in an a p p r o p r i a t e range of scores on both measures. Perhaps using a longer s t o r y , r a t h e r t h a t two completely d i f f e r e n t s t o r i e s , before measuring r e c a l l might produce a d e s i r a b l e range of scores on both cued r e c a l l and f r e e r e c a l l . F u r t h e r , i n s t e a d of f r e e r e c a l l , the use of open ended ques t i o n s might be more s e n s i t i v e to i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatment e f f e c t s and yet s t i l l i n v o l v e d i f f e r e n t task demands than verbatim or paraphrased cued r e c a l l . E d u c a t i o n a l I m p l i c a t i o n s The main e d u c a t i o n a l q u e s t i o n asked in t h i s study was: To f a c i l i t a t e o r a l prose r e c a l l , should both p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n be used when p r e s e n t i n g o r a l i n f o r m a t i o n or would the p r o v i s i o n of p i c t u r e s alone provide the same amount of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support? I t appears that while using p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n in combination does not r e s u l t in an a d d i t i v e e f f e c t on any one measure, the c h i l d r e n in the combined treatment c o n d i t i o n both answered more q u e s t i o n s than the c h i l d r e n who d i d not view p i c t u r e s , and used longer u t t e r a n c e s in f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l than the c h i l d r e n who d i d not r e c e i v e r e p e t i t i o n . T h i s leads to a t e n t a t i v e recommendation that both p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n be used when p r e s e n t i n g o r a l i n f o r m a t i o n to young c h i l d r e n . However, to provide a more d e f i n i t e answer to t h i s q u e s t i o n more research i s needed. Although i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s were not the focus of t h i s study, one of the more i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g s was that there was a wide range of scores on both semantic and s e r i a l order of r e c a l l 31 i n the f r e e s t o r y r e c a l l task. These d i f f e r e n c e s were not r e l a t e d to the f a c t o r s of p i c t u r e s and r e p e t i t i o n . F u r t h e r , the low c o r r e l a t i o n between a b i l i t y to r e c a l l i n f o r m a t i o n and a b i l i t y to r e c a l l the in f o r m a t i o n in c o r r e c t s e r i a l order i n d i c a t e s that separate s k i l l s are i n v o l v e d on these two aspects of the same task (see Appendix C ) . Research i s needed to determine both why some young c h i l d r e n have these s k i l l s and some do not, and what the 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 or not having these s k i l l s a r e . C l e a r l y , the a b i l i t y to r e c a l l both the content and the order of o r a l l y presented i n f o r m a t i o n i s important f o r such school r e l a t e d tasks as d i r e c t i o n f o l l o w i n g , o r a l e x p r e s s i o n , and arguing l o g i c a l l y . F u r t h e r , i t i s very p o s s i b l e that the s k i l l s i n v o l v e d in o r a l s t o r y n a r r a t i o n are p r e - c u r s e r s to the s k i l l s i n v o l v e d in w r i t t e n expression and reading comprehension. Thus, even on the two dependent v a r i a b l e s in which no treatment e f f e c t s were found, there are r e s u l t s which generate questions d e s e r v i n g f u r t h e r study. 32 Footnotes 1 In reviewing t h i s l i t e r a t u r e only s t u d i e s i n which 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 m a t e r i a l or read aloud w i l l be c i t e d . Studies of the e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s on reading (e.g. Samuels,1970) are beyond the scope of t h i s study because new v a r i a b l e s such as word decoding 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 that area of r e s e a r c h . 2 Because of the p o s s i b i l i t y that a c e i l i n g e f f e c t would occur using 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 procedure was a l s o employed. In t h i s procedure, each q u e s t i o n was worth two p o i n t s . Answers were given a score 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 at 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) i f the e s s e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n was present and a score of (.5) i f part of the 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 scores was the same using e i t h e r the l i b e r a l or the s t r i c t s c o r i n g system f o r paraphrased cued r e c a l l , and the c o r r e l a t i o n between the two methods was very high (Pearson r =.95, p .0001). A l s o , i n i t i a l . analyses y i e l d e d i d e n t i c a l r e s u l t s . T h i s i m p l i e d that both methods were measuring e s s e n t i a l l y the same t h i n g . Only the l i b e r a l s c o r i n g method was i n c l u d e d in the 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 procedure that has been used in previous a n a l y s e s . 3 . Rubin's (1978) word u n i t a n a l y s i s procedure was a l s o used and compared to the above procedure for ease of use and r e l i a b i l i t y . The high c o r r e l a t i o n between both procedures for s c o r i n g semantic r e c a l l 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 though the s i z e of the u n i t s of a n a l y s i s are d i f f e r e n t , they are p r o v i d i n g 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 that when t o t a l amount of content r e c a l l e d i s the q u e s t i o n of i n t e r e s t , both procedures are v a l i d ways of o b t a i n i n g that 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 procedure was chosen as the f i n a l method to i n c l u d e i n the m u l t i - v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s because t h i s i s the u n i t s i z e most commonly co 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. (Mandler & Johnson, 1 977; Lesgold, et. a l . , 1977). 33 Reference Notes 1. Bullock,M. Personal Communication, November 1981. 2. Lee,S.S. Personal Communication, October 1981. 34 Reference L i s t Anderson,R.C. How to c o n s t r u c t achievement t e s t s to assess comprehension. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1972. 42,145-170. Ausubel,D.P. & Yousef,M. The e f f e c t of spaced r e p e t i t i o n on meaningful r e t e n t i o n . J o u r n a l of General Psychology, 1965, 73,147-150. Bender,B.G. & Levin,J.R. P i c t u r e s , imagery, and r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n ' s 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,1978, 70, 583-588. Bloom,L. & Lahey,M. Language Development and Language D i s o r d e r s . New York: Wiley & Sons,1978. Bock,R.D. M u l t i v a r i a t e S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n B e h a v i o r a l Research. New York: McGraw-Hill,1975. Brody,P.J. & Legenza,A. Can p i c t o r i a l a t t r i b u t e s serve mathemagenic f u n c t i o n s ? E d u c a t i o n a l Communication and Technology J o u r n a l , 1980, 28, 25-29. Brown,A.L. Re 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 of n a r r a t i v e sequences by p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 1975, 46,156-166. Brown,R. A F i r s t Language: The E a r l y Stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press,1973. Craik,R.I.M. & Lockhart,R.S. Lev e l s of p r o c e s s i n g : A framework for memory re s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of Ve r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l  Behavior,1972 , 11 , 671-684. Cummins,J. & Mulcahy,R. Simultaneous and s u c c e s s i v e p r o c e s s i n g and n a r r a t i v e speech. Canadian J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l Science, 1979, JJ_, 64-71. Dale,P.S. . Language Development: S t r u c t u r e and F u n c t i o n . New York: H o l t Rinehart and Winston,1976. Das,J.P.,Kirby,J.P. & Jarman,R.F. Simultaneous and s u c c e s s i v e s y n t h e s i s : An a l t e r n a t i v e model for c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t in,1975, 82, 87-103. Das,J.P.,Kirby,J.P. & Jarman, R.F. Simultaneous and Suc c e s s i v e  C o g n i t i v e Processes. New York: Academic Press,1979. DiVesta,F. & Grey,G.S. L i s t e n i n g and note t a k 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, 8-14. Duchastel,P.C. Research on i l l u s t r a t i o n s i n t e x t : Issues and p e r s p e c t i v e s . E d u c a t i o n a l Communication and Technology J o u r n a l , 1980, 28, 283-287. 35 Dunham,T.C. & Levin,J.R. Imagery i n s t r u c t i o n s and young c h i l d r e n ' s prose l e a r n i n g : No evidence of "support". Contemporary E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology,1979, 4,107-113., Fleming,M.L. On p i c t u r e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . I n s t r u c t i o n a l  Science, 1979, 8, 235-251. Guttman,J. The e f f e c t s of p i c t u r e s and p a r t i a l p i c t u r e s and c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1975). Guttman,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 c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l 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, 1977, 69, 473-480. Jarman,R.F. C o g n i t i v e processes and s y n t a c t i c a l s t r u c t u r e : A n a l y s i s of paradigmatic and syntagmatic a s s o c i a t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research,1980,41,153-157. King,D.J., & Cotton, K. R e p e t i t i o n and immediate r e c a l l of connected d i s c o u r s e p r a c t i c e d under delayed a u d i t o r y feedback. Perceptual Motor S k i l l s , 1969, 28,177-78. Kirk,R.E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the B e h a v i o r a l Sc i e n c e s . Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth,1968. Lesgold , A.M. ,. De Good,H. & Levin,J.R. P i c t u r e s and young c h i l d r e n ' s prose l e a r n i n g : a supplementary r e p o r t . J o u r n a l of  Reading Behavior,1977, 9, 353-360. Lesgold,A.M.,Levin,J.R. Shimron,J. & Guttman,J. P i c t u r e s and young c h i l d r e n ' s l e a r n i n g from o r a l prose. J o u r n a l of  E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology,1975, 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 prose ( T h e o r e t i c a l paper no. 80). Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Research and Development Center f o r I n d i v i d u a l i z e d S c h o o l i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, December,1979. Levin,J.R., & Berry,J.K. C h i l d r e n ' s l e a r n i n g of a l l the news th a t ' s f i t to p i c t u r e . E d u c a t i o n a l Communication &  Technology, 1980, Levin,J.R.,Bender,B.G. & Lesgold,A.M. P i c t u r e s , r e p e t i t i o n , and young c h i l d r e n ' s o r a l prose l e a r n i n g . AV Communication- Review, 1976, 24, 367-380. Levin,J.R. & Lesgold,A.M. On p i c t u r e s in prose. E d u c a t i o n a l Communication and Technology,1978, 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 l e v e l of ..processing on memory for words. J o u r n a l of V e r b a l Learning  and V e r b a l Behavior, 1980,j_9, 36-45. Mandler,J.M. & Johnson,N.S. Remembrance of t h i n g s parsed: 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 Psychology,1977, 9,111-151. 36 Nelson,T.O. R e p e t i t i o n and depth of p r o c e s s i n g . . J o u r n a l of  Ve r b a l Learning & V e r b a l Behavior,1977,16,151 - 171 . Ornstein,P.A. & Naus, M. Rehearsal Processes i n c h i l d r e n ' s memory. In O r n s t e i n , P.A. (Ed.) Memory Development i n  C h i l d r e n . H i l l s d a l e , N.J. :L.Er 1 baurn Associates,.1 978. P a i v i o , A . Imagery and V e r b a l Processes, New York: H o l t , Rinehart, and Winston,1971. P a i v i o , A . Imagery and synchronic t h i n k i n g . Canadian  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review,1975,16,147-163. P a i v i o , A . Concerning dua l - c o d i n g and simultaneous-successive p r o c e s s i n g . Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review,1976,17, 69-71. Petros,T. & Hoving,K. The e f f e c t s of review on young c h i l d r e n ' s memory f o r prose. J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 1980, 3_0, 33-43 Pressley,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 the p i c t u r e in developmental p e r s p e c t i v e . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1977, 47, 585-622. Purkel,W. & Bornstein,M. H., P i c t u r e s and imagery both enhance c h i l d r e n ' s short-term and long term r e c a l l . J o u r n a l of  Developmental Psychology, 1980,16,153-154. Reese,H.W. Imagery and a s s o c i a t i v e memory In K a i l & Hagen (eds.) P e r s p e c t i v e s on the Development of Memory and C o g n i t i o n , H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1977, Ch 5, 113-175. Rohwer,W.D.Jr. E l a b o r a t i o n and l e a r n i n g in c h i l d h o o d and adolescence. In H.W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in C h i l d  Development and Behavior (Vol 8). New York: Academic Press,1973. Rohwer,W.D.Jr.& Harris,W.J. Media e f f e c t s on prose l e a r n i n g i n two p o p u l a t i o n s of c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Psychology, 1975, 6_7, 651-657. Rubin,D.C. A u n i t a n a l y s i s of prose memory. J o u r n a l of V e r b a l  Learning and Ver b a l Behavior, 1978,J_7, 599-620. Ruch,M.D. & Levin,J.R. P i c t o r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n versus v e r b a l r e p e t i t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s prose: Evidence f o r p r o c e s s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s . AV Communication Review, 1977, 2_5, 269-280. Rustead,J. & Coltheart,M. F a c i l i t a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s prose r e c a l l 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 l e a r n i n g to read, comprehension, and a t t i t u d e s . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1970, 40, 397-407. 37 Schnorr, &-Atkinson,R.C. R e p e t i t i o n versus imagery i n s t r u c t i o n s in the short-and long-term r e t e n t i o n of p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s . Psychonomic Science,1969,15,183-184. 1969 S i l v e r n , S . B . Play, p i c t u r e s , and r e p e t i t i o n : Mediators i n a u r a l prose l e a r n i n g . E d u c a t i o n a l Communication and Technology  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 comprehension in elementary s c h o o l . In R. F r e e d l e (Ed.), D i s c o u r s e p r o c e s s i n g :  M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y P e r s p e c t i v e s . Maplewood, New J e r s e y : Ablex,1977. T r a v i s , L . D . & White,W.B. Experimental manipulation 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 Research, 1979, 25,137-46. Tyack,D. & Gottsleben,R. Language Sampling, A n a l y s i s , a n d  T r a i n i n g . Palo A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s Press, 1974. Yarmey,A.D. & Barker,W.J. R e p e t i t i o n versus imagery i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the immediate-and d e l a y e d - r e t e n t i o n of p i c t u r e and word p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e s . Canadian J o u r n a l of Psychology/Review of  Canadian Psychology, 1971, 2_5, 56-61. 38 Appendix A Free Story R e c a l l I n s t r u c t i o n s Examiner : "Now I'm going to wake up Mr. Puppet, who has been a s l e e p , so that you can t e l l him e v e r y t h i n g you remember about the. s t o r y you j u s t heard. "Mr Puppet, wake up. T h i s i s ( C h i l d ' s Name) and s/he i s going to t e l l you a s t o r y s/he j u s t heard". Mr. Puppet : "A s t o r y ! I love s t o r i e s . I hope i t ' s going to be a long one". Examiner : O.K. go ahead and t e l l Mr. Puppet e v e r y t h i n g you can remember about the s t o r y you j u s t heard". (When the student stops pause f o r twenty seconds). Examiner : "Now I want you to t e l l Mr. Puppet anything e l s e you can remember about the s t o r y " . (When the student stops, pause f o r twenty seconds). "Now I ' l l give you one more minute to think about the s t o r y to see i f there i s anything e l s e you can remember to t e l l Mr. Puppet". ( A f t e r f o r t y seconds or a f t e r the student has stopped f o r twenty seconds) Mr. Puppet : "What e l s e can you remember to t e l l me about the s t o r y ? " ( A f t e r the student stops wait f o r twenty seconds). Mr. Puppet : Thank you very much, that was a great s t o r y . 39 Appendix B I n s t r u c t i o n s to Subjects "I want to f i n d out how much kids your age can remember about, s t o r i e s they hear. F i r s t I w i l l turn the•tape recorder on. Then you w i l l l i s t e n to a s t o r y . To h e l p you remember i t I want you t o : C o n t r o l : " L i s t e n to each sentence very c a r e f u l l y . Be sure to pay a t t e n t i o n to.the s t o r y . " R e p e t i t i o n : " L i s t e n c a r e f u l l y to each sentence two times. Be sure to pay a t t e n t i o n to the s t o r y . " P i c t u r e s : " L i s t e n to each sentence very c a r e f u l l y . Be sure to pay a t t e n t i o n to the p i c t u r e s that go with the s t o r y " . P i c t u r e s p l u s R e p e t i t i o n : " L i s t e n c a r e f u l l y to each sentence two times. Be sure to pay a t t e n t i o n to the p i c t u r e s that go with the s t o r y " . A f t e r you hear the s t o r y I w i l l f i n d out how much you can remember. Let's p r a c t i c e with a very short s t o r y f i r s t " . ( P r a c t i c e s t o r y 1) "The happy r a b b i t chewed on a blue p e n c i l . " ( P r a c t i c e Cued R e c a l l Task) "What d i d the bunny ea t ? " . or ( P r a c t i c e Free R e c a l l Task) T e l l me e v e r y t h i n g you can remember about the s t o r y you j u s t heard" "Very good. You remembered e v e r y t h i n g " , or "Very good but you c o u l d have a l s o s a i d Now t e l l , me e v e r y t h i n g you can remember about the s t o r y " . 40 "Now that.you understand what to do I want you to l i s t e n to a longer s t o r y " . ( F i r s t s t o r y , followed by the a p p r o p r i a t e r e c a l l task.) "Now. you w i l l l i s t e n to another s t o r y . But f i r s t l e t ' s p r a c t i c e again so that you know what to do. ( P r a c t i c e Story 2) "The scared duck looked back at the speeding c a r " . ( P r a c t i c e Cued R e c a l l ) "What d i d the b i r d see?". or ( P r a c t i c e Free R e c a l l : Same as above). "Now that you understand what to do I want you to l i s t e n to another long s t o r y " . (Second s t o r y , followed by the a p p r o p r i a t e r e c a l l t a s k ) . Appendix C CORRELATIONS OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES I n t e r - r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y Dependent V a r i a b l e Pearson r Paraphrased Cued R e c a l l : .99 T o t a l Information U n i t s .97 T o t a l Word U n i t s .97 Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) .98 S e r i a l Order .94 I n t e r - C o r r e l a t i o n Matrix of Dependent V a r i a b l e s Var i a b l e : Paraphrased Cued R e c a l l Free 1 ) L i b e r a l 1 .00 2) S t r i c t .94 1 .00 Story R e c a l l 3) T o t a l I n f . U n i t s .32 . 1 9 1 .00 4) T o t a l Word U n i t s . 30 . 1 7 .95 1 .00 5) MLU . 1 3 .08 . 1 6 .23 6) S e r i a l Order .02 . 1 1 . 16 . 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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095088/manifest

Comment

Related Items