UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of analyzing task demands on children's selection and transfer of effective memory strategies Chow, Yi Ling Mary 1987

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 C45.pdf [ 2.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097229.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097229-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097229-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097229-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097229-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097229-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097229-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097229-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097229.ris

Full Text

THE  EFFECTS OF ANALYZING TASK DEMANDS ON CHILDREN'S  SELECTION AND TRANSFER OF E F F E C T I V E MEMORY STRATEGIES  by  YI  LING MARY CHOW  B.A., M c G i l l  U n i v e r s i t y , 1985  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER  OF ARTS  in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND S P E C I A L EDUCATION We a c c e p t t h i s  thesis  to the required  THE  as conforming standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH  COLUMBIA  AUGUST, 1987 @  Y I LING MARY CHOW, 1987  In  presenting this  degree at  the  thesis in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  for  an advanced  British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it  freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of  this  department  or  thesis for by  his  or  scholarly purposes may be granted her  representatives.  It  is  by the  understood  that  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without permission.  Department of  f.ftT/rOAJ&L  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6(3/81)  fcy&J/y/KV  head of copying  my or  my written  Abstract  This  s t u d y examined t h e e f f e c t s o f a n a l y z i n g  task  demands on c h i l d r e n ' s s e l e c t i o n and s p o n t a n e o u s t r a n s f e r of  e f f e c t i v e memory s t r a t e g i e s .  transfer task  were u s e d .  Two l e a r n i n g t a s k s  One h u n d r e d and e i g h t  i n g r a d e s 3 and 5 were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d three  conditions,  Elaborated subjects and  Control,  Instruction  i n the Control  EI conditions  No s t r a t e g y  condition.  Subjects  were i n s t r u c t e d t o u s e  information  application  appropriate In addition,  p r i o r t o the t r a n s f e r task.  Results  g r a d e was s i g n i f i c a n t  indicated that  not f o rthe paired-associate  and  t r a n s f e r phases.  In general,  experimental conditions subjects  task  a t both  subjects  condition,  o u t performed t h e SI s u b j e c t s . occurred  mainly  task  learning  i n t h e two  ( S I and E I ) p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r  i n the Control  task  t h e main e f f e c t o f  f o rthe categorical word-list  but  strategies  Their  o f t h e memory s t r a t e g i e s t o t h e t r a n s f e r  was e x a m i n e d .  subjects  i n t h e SI  i n the EI c o n d i t i o n a l s o received t a s k - s p e c i f i c  strategies  the  ( S I ) , and  was t a u g h t t o  memory s t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e l e a r n i n g t a s k . subjects  children  t o one o f t h e  Simple I n s t r u c t i o n  (EI).  and a  and t h a t  the EI  Transfer  i n the EI c o n d i t i o n  than  of the  which  included the  the task-specific  more t a s k - s p e c i f i c  information.  information  c o n c e r n i n g t h e memory s t r a t e g i e s , would t r a n s f e r learning  the strategies  situations.  I n o t h e r words,  subjects  received  t h e more l i k e l y  appropriately  t o new  they  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter  I.  RESEARCH PROBLEM Statement o f t h e Problem  1.  Theoretical  3.  Rationale II.  1.  Background.'  and T h e o r e t i c a l H y p o t h e s e s . . . 9 .  METHOD  15.  Subjects  and D e s i g n  15.  Learning  and T r a n s f e r Tasks  17.  1. 2. 3.  Paired-Associate Categorical Word-List T r a n s f e r Task  Procedure III.  23. of Learning  Performance  24.  1.  Paired-Associate  24.  2.  Categorical Word-List  25.  Analysis  REFERENCES  19.  RESULTS Analysis  IV.  17 . 17. 18.  o f T r a n s f e r Performance  26.  1. 2.  Paired-Associate Categorical Word-list  26. 27.  3.  Strategy-Choice  29.  Data  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION  31. 3 8.  V  L I S T OF  TABLES Page  TABLE  1.  Schematic Diagram o f Design  and  Procedure...47.  TABLE 2.  Mean No. o f P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e and Word-List Items C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d a t t h e L e a r n i n g and T r a n s f e r P h a s e s by T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s and Two G r a d e s (N=108) 48,  TABLE 3.  P r o p o r t i o n of Subjects f o r Four C a t e g o r i e s o f S t r a t e g i e s R e p o r t e d as Employed Under t h e T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s (N=108).... 49.  TABLE 4.  P r o p o r t i o n o f S u b j e c t s Aware o f t h e B e n e f i t s i n Using Appropriate S t r a t e g i e s f o r the T r a n s f e r Task as R e p o r t e d Under t h e T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s (N=108) 50,  vi  L I S T OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1.  Mean No. o f P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e I t e m s C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d a t t h e L e a r n i n g Phase by T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s and Two G r a d e s (N=108) 51.  FIGURE 2.  Mean No. o f W o r d - L i s t I t e m s C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d a t t h e L e a r n i n g Phase b y T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s a n d Two G r a d e s (N=108) 52.  FIGURE 3.  Mean No. o f P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e I t e m s C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d a t t h e T r a n s f e r Phase by T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s and Two G r a d e s (N=108) 53.  FIGURE 4.  Mean No. o f W o r d - L i s t I t e m s C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d a t t h e T r a n s f e r Phase b y T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s and Two G r a d e s (N=108) 54.  vii  L I S T OF APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A.  Paired-Associate  List  ( T a s k 1)  55.  APPENDIX B.  Categorical Word-List  ( T a s k 2)  56.  APPENDIX C.  Paired-Associate Practice  APPENDIX D.  Illustration  &  List  57.  C a t e g o r i c a l Word-List  Illustration  &  Practice List  58.  APPENDIX E .  T r a n s f e r Task  59.  APPENDIX F.  Control Condition  60.  APPENDIX G.  Simple I n s t r u c t i o n C o n d i t i o n  61.  APPENDIX H.  Elaborated  63.  APPENDIX I .  Questionnaire  Instruction Condition  T r a n s f e r Task  on S t r a t e g y  Used  During 65.  ACKNOWLE DGEMENT  In the e x e c u t i o n of t h i s of t h i s all  thesis,  t h o s e who  I was  s t u d y and  the p r e p a r a t i o n  a s s i s t e d by many p e o p l e .  contributed for their  support  I thank  and  encouragement. I w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my advisor,  Dr.  Seong-Soo Lee,  support during t h i s committee,  Dr.  f o r h i s guidance,  research.  Julie  and  Mr.  support  Cutcliffe  C o n r y , and  Dr.  of the study.  Mr.  and  Larsen, p r i n c i p a l s ,  I a l s o wish  to express  officials for their my  participated  in  study. In a d d i t i o n ,  continual throughout  support, this  I t h a n k my  husband, R i c h a r d ,  e n c o u r a g e m e n t , and  study.  my  comments.  a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l o f t h e s u b j e c t s who this  advice,  R i t a Watson, f o r  acknowledge the s c h o o l board and  my  I a l s o t h a n k members o f  t h e i r v a l u a b l e s u g g e s t i o n s and I gratefully  appreciation to  for his  understanding  1  Chapter  I  RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT OF  THE  PROBLEM  E a r l y work i n memory d e v e l o p m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t y o u n g c h i l d r e n o f t e n do  not  generate s t r a t e g i e s  s p o n t a n e o u s l y t o a i d t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e on (Kail  & Hagen, 1977;  1976).  Recently,  Rohwer, 1973;  researchers  t r a i n i n g programs i n o r d e r k n o w l e d g e and (Lodico,  Ghatala,  O'Sullivan Lodico,  their  & Pressley,  1985;  Salatas  &  have employed  tasks  Flavell, different  t o enhance c h i l d r e n ' s  appropriate  Levin,  learning  use  Pressley,  1984;  o f memory s t r a t e g i e s & Bell,  Ghatala,  Waters & Andreassen,  1983;  Levin,  1983).  Pressley,  Results  from  t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s show t h a t  i t i s p o s s i b l e to teach  children  memory s t r a t e g i e s t o  t o use  appropriate  t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e on  specific  particular  s t r a t e g i e s are  particular  tasks,  do  not  However,  appropriate  and  a l s o found t h a t  1982).  Although there  some t r a n s f e r d i d t a k e p l a c e , resulted  the  are  children  Dennis-Rounds,  1980).  &  Researchers are  often novel  Ferretti,  cases i n which  occurrences  from e x p e r i m e n t e r s ' e x p l i c i t  enhance  helpful for  s i t u a t i o n s (Belmont, B u t t e r f i e l d ,  Waters,  young  while  t r a n s f e r t h e i r knowledge o f s t r a t e g i e s t o  learning 1982;  i t was  tasks.  &  are  prompts thus  often  (Pressley &  confronted  2  with  the d i f f i c u l t task  variety  o f how t o t e a c h  children a  o f e f f i c i e n t memory s t r a t e g i e s , s o t h a t t h e y  t r a n s f e r them s p o n t a n e o u s l y when t h e y  face novel  will  learning  tasks. Closer other  examination o f t h e t r a i n i n g programs used by  studies  reveals that the previous  have n e g l e c t e d  one a s p e c t  memory s t r a t e g i e s b e i n g general  (i.e.,  strategy A i s b e t t e r than s t r a t e g y  Bfor  indiscriminately  The define  namely, task-  while  learning tasks).  learning  i n their training,  t a s k - s p e c i f i c rather than  some l e a r n i n g t a s k s other  s t u d i e s seemed t o  the opposite  Consequently,  apply  i s true  f o r some  one may n o t  t h e same memory s t r a t e g y t o a l l  tasks. principal  objective of the present  s t u d y was t o  an a l t e r n a t i v e t r a i n i n g program which aimed a t  enhancing c h i l d r e n ' s spontaneous t r a n s f e r o f e f f e c t i v e strategies.  In t h i s  examining t h e notion  study, that  the primary  focus  spontaneous t r a n s f e r o f  e f f e c t i v e memory s t r a t e g i e s d e p e n d s i n p a r t not  one h a s k n o w l e d g e and a b i l i t y  strategies that for  are appropriate  the learning task  a t hand.  memory s t r a t e g i e s a r e e q u a l l y for  a l l learning tasks.  on w h e t h e r o r  to distinguish  from t h o s e In other  inappropriate  words, n o t a l l  appropriate  I t was p o s t u l a t e d  and e f f e c t i v e that  p e r f o r m a n c e d e p e n d s on t h e l e a r n e r ' s a b i l i t y e f f e c t i v e memory s t r a t e g y  was on  according  memory  t o s e l e c t an  to the learning  task  3  demand.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , having  the necessary  knowledge  differentiate  s t r a t e g i e s that are appropriate  at  facilitate  hand w o u l d  acquired  to the  to task  c h i l d r e n to t r a n s f e r the  s t r a t e g i e s to novel  learning tasks.  THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  Since  t h e l a n d m a r k symposium  of F l a v e l l  (1971)  "what  i s memory d e v e l o p m e n t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f ? " , i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n t i o n has been d i r e c t e d towards c h i l d r e n ' s of t h e development o f t h e i r there  i s now  awareness  a l a r g e body  of t h e i r  on metamemory. by F l a v e l l  own  own  cognitive processes,  (1971) a s one's a w a r e n e s s  and r e t r i e v a l .  wholly  one  item  irretrievable  Generally,  of his/her  germane t o  I n o t h e r words,  defined own  information a person  has  t h a t some t h i n g s  are  and i s aware  i s on t h e v e r g e o f r e c a l l , a n o t h e r i s ( F l a v e l l & Wellman,  1977).  a p e r s o n s h o w i n g metamemory w o u l d  k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t h i s / h e r own  be  memory s t a t e i n a  situation,  and w o u l d a l s o be aware o f t h e  strategies  f o r s t o r i n g and r e t r i e v i n g  memory.  particularly  f o r h i m / h e r t o remember t h a n o t h e r s ,  that while  result,  The phenomenon o f metamemory was  metamemory i f s/he shows k n o w l e d g e easier  As a  o f l i t e r a t u r e on c h i l d r e n ' s  memory s t a t e o r any knowledge storage  memory.  awareness  given  appropriate  information  from  4  Findings children and  from v a r i o u s  generally  studies  show g r e a t e r  indicate that  metamemorial knowledge  awareness than younger c h i l d r e n  Marchena,  older  (Bjorklund  1984; Brown, 1978; F l a v e l l  & de  & Wellman, 1977;  Moynahan, 1978; Rohwer, 1 9 8 0 ) .  F o r example, v e r y  children  know t h a t  is  harder  older  (e.g.,  a memory  (e.g.,  g r a d e 5) know t h a t  a recall  i f one h a s t o l e a r n two s e t s words t h a t  confused  task  i f i t h a s a l a r g e number o f i t e m s w h e r e a s  children  harder  kindergartners)  young  (Kreutzer,  Leonard,  & Flavell,  M o r e o v e r , compared t o o l d e r  only  task i s  are easily  1975).  c h i l d r e n , younger  c h i l d r e n were f o u n d t o engage i n m e m o r i z a t i o n nonstrategically, things  h a v e b e e n memorized, and r e c a l l  Cooper, M c C a r r e l l , Brown  to and  that  & Flavell,  were l e s s aware o f t h e f a c t  that  of high  associates  1972).  compared  that  form t h a n  M o r e o v e r , t h e y were l e s s aware t h a t  learn l i s t s  (Appel,  kindergartners,  e a s i e r t o remember i n a n a r r a t i v e  list.  poorly  Sims-Knight, Yussen,  (1978) a l s o r e p o r t e d  to third-graders, are  h a v e p o o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f when some  words  ina  i ti s easier  t h a n low a s s o c i a t e s ,  i t i s e a s i e r t o paraphrase than t o r e c a l l  verbatim. G i v e n t h a t young c h i l d r e n a r e r e l a t i v e l y their  own memory p r o c e s s a s w e l l  may i n f l u e n c e memory, r e c e n t  a s how t a s k  naive  about  parameters  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on memory  development m a i n l y have f o c u s e d  on s t r a t e g y  usage  under  5  instruction  (Pressley,  1982)  rationale  if  .  The  young c h i l d r e n  Heisel,  behind these  are  unaware o f  abilities,  p e r h a p s t h e y can  strategies  and  be  Results  children  be  Paris,  tend to  f o r the  generalizability inadequacy of  do  not  execute the example,  strategies by  i s one list  and  of  The  presentation.  the  & Ghatala,  Dennis1984c).  and  a p p e a r s t o be  strategy  studied  procedures  Children  to p r a c t i c e  the  o t h e r words i n t h e  t h i s d u r i n g the  Notably lacking  to  For  (1977) were t y p i c a l  rehearsal.  trials  o f how  most f r e q u e n t l y The  the  instructions  a strategy.  learning.  Aivano  two do  (Brown,  and  more t h a n a d e s c r i p t i o n  r e h e a r s e were s i m p l y t o l d  were e n c o u r a g e d t o  problem;  continue  Pressley  strategies  1984).  young  strategies  limited durability  i n r e s e a r c h on  word a l o u d w i t h any  show t h a t  trained  Ross, L e v i n ,  component p r o c e s s e s o f  f o r simple  memory  instruction during t r a i n i n g  include  Naus, O r n s t e i n ,  those used to  strategy  rehearsal  learn  strategies.  prompted t o  acquired  & Pressley,  1  usually  of  that  memory  a perplexing  abandon t h e  Pressley,  reason  (0 Sullivan  t o use  face  is  appropriate  Newman, & McVey, 1982;  Rounds, 1980; One  taught to  readily trained  u n l e s s t h e y were e x p l i c i t l y 1978;  t h e i r own  from v a r i o u s s t u d i e s  However, e x p e r i m e n t e r s o f t e n young c h i l d r e n  & Nakamur,  investigations  implement them u n d e r  conditions. can  McCormick,  used  of  instructed  presented  list.  They  entire  from t h e  instructions  was  6  any  information  to the this  goal  1982)  .  their  the  m i g h t be  strategy  received  why  (1977).  on  (1977) were t o l d  specific  i n the  were t o l d  information As  s t u d y by  these  involved  use.  too  during  s u g g e s t e d by  many r e s e a r c h e r s  1981;  e t a l . , 1983;  strategies  on  Naus e t a l .  Pressley  &  Levin  the  that their  t h e i r performance.  images o f  images w o u l d  specific  the  aid  include gains still  or d e t a i l e d  own,  i n s t r u c t i o n inadequacy,  more s p e c i f i c  training  trials.  strategy I t has  (Brown, Campione,  P a i r s , e t a l . , 1982;  i n order  respective values  together.  strategy.  began t o p r o v i d e  1980)  were  However, t h e y were  little  instructions  Springer,  by  instructions  t h e y became more aware o f  Lodico  (1977) i n  of e l a b o r a t i o n  knowledge about l e a r n i n g  about the  researchers  (Pressley,  t o generate mental  with strategy  v a g u e and  has  t o remember w h i c h i t e m s p a i r e d  strategy  linked  circumstances  & Levin  than those provided  I t seems t h a t  associated  the  Pressley  items i n t e r a c t i n g s i n c e these  learning.  was  learning  elaboration  c h i l d r e n ' s use  A l l subjects  Some s u b j e c t s  i n what  for paired-associate  d i r e c t i o n s u s e d by  research  strategy  varied.  somewhat more s p e c i f i c  too  and  as much a t t e n t i o n as The  paired  rehearsal  o f memory, o r how  strategy No  on  for children to  been &  Day,  Ringel transfer  t h e y must p o s s e s s k n o w l e d g e  of the  strategies in  Some s t u d i e s  on  improving  examined t h e  effect  of  &  7  experimenter-provided  information  concerning  effectiveness of the trained strategy.  the value  T h e y showed  or  that,  in general,  when c h i l d r e n a r e made aware o f t h e v a l u e o f  a strategy,  t h e y a r e more l i k e l y  strategy 1979;  a f t e r t r a i n i n g (e.g.,  Kramer & E n g l e ,  1981).  t o continue t o use that  Cavanaugh & B o r k o w s k i , For instance,  Lodico  (1983) t r a i n e d 7 t o 8 y e a r o l d c h i l d r e n a b o u t principles different task.  of strategy  general  e x p o s i n g them t o  e f f e c t i v e a c q u i s i t i o n s t r a t e g i e s i n a memory  Their  monitoring in  monitoring before  et a l .  study suggests that  and e v a l u a t i n g  engaging c h i l d r e n i n  a range o f s t r a t e g i e s r e s u l t s  s e l e c t i n g more a p p r o p r i a t e  strategies i n various  tasks. Moreover, P r e s s l e y , (1984a) p r o p o s e d t h a t  Borkowski,  strategy  that  metamemorial  strategy  0'Sullivan  usage i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d  t o knowledge about t h e s t r a t e g y , explicit  and  information  and t h e y s u g g e s t e d on a s t r a t e g y  more e f f e c t i v e when n e e d e d .  i s the  comprehensive knowledge o f t h e s t r a t e g y  memory s t r a t e g y referred  makes  In other  w o r d s , an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d learner's  i s taught.  to this  own k n o w l e d g e a n d s k i l l about  et a l .  types of task i n using  its utility,  when a  (1984a)  t y p e o f knowledge as s p e c i f i c  knowledge which i n c l u d e s  information  Pressley  that  strategy  materials,  one's  the strategy,  as w e l l  a b o u t when, why, and how t o u s e v a r i o u s  as t h e knowledge strategies  8  appropriately  i n d i f f e r e n t contexts.  c h i l d r e n need t o p o s s e s s a g e n e r a l g u i d e them  i n how and when t o a p p l y  More  specifically,  p r i n c i p l e that  would  the strategies  appropriately. 0'Sullivan  & Pressley  o f t h e a b o v e components  (1984) h a d i n c o r p o r a t e d  i n their  study.  some  Children i n  g r a d e s 5 a n d 6 and a d u l t s were p r e s e n t e d two memory w i t h an a s s o c i a t i v e component.  First,  p a i r i n g s b e t w e e n names o f c i t i e s they acquired Control  learned  instructions.  conditions  learned  k e y w o r d method materials  and t h e i r p r o d u c t s ;  both sets Subjects  mnemonics a r e h e l p f u l .  t o how  I n one o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  subjects  information  a b o u t t h e memory s t r a t e g y  were p r e s e n t e d w i t h o n l y  was n o t p r e s e n t e d .  o f t h e memory s t r a t e g y The most  These  how and when t h e k e y w o r d  conditions,  "when" i n f o r m a t i o n  learning  v a r i e d with respect  were t o l d  w i t h no  pairs using the  & Dennis-Rounds, 1980).  subjects  words.  of materials  which i s e f f e c t i v e w i t h such  experimental conditions  t h e "how"  a n d t h e "where" and Their  t o the L a t i n task  application  was e x a m i n e d .  important dependent v a r i a b l e i n t h e i r  i s whether s u b j e c t s  then  i n the experimental  the city-product  (Pressley  explicitly  learned  d e f i n i t i o n s of L a t i n vocabulary  subjects  strategy  they  tasks  had t r a n s f e r r e d t h e keyword  to the L a t i n vocabulary task.  In general,  t r a n s f e r was f o u n d t o be g r e a t e r  study  strategy  children's  when t h e k e y w o r d  9  instruction  explicitly  contained  a l o tof information  a b o u t how and when t o u s e t h e s t r a t e g y . hand, a d u l t s ' t r a n s f e r was h i g h explicitness  Adults probably  a b o u t a. s t r a t e g y f r o m s i m p l e t h a n c h i l d r e n do 1984b), t h u s , strategy  a b s t r a c t more k n o w l e d g e  instructions  making t h e e x p l i c i t  f o r stronger  critical  aspects  has  i t provided  cause-and-effect  of specific  useful insights  i n d u c i n g metamemory s t r a t e g y . some p r e l i m i n a r y e v i d e n c e  with  children.  conclusions  (1984) than  c l e a r d i r e c t i o n s on  s t r a t e g y knowledge, n o r into optimal  ways o f  However, i t d i d p r o v i d e  that increasing provision of  i n f o r m a t i o n on a s t r a t e g y d u r i n g important  Ghatala,  by 0 * S u l l i v a n & P r e s s l e y  s t u d i e s , i t has not p r o v i d e d  the  and p r a c t i c e  provision of specific  i n f o r m a t i o n much more c r u c i a l  previous  usage.  included i n the  ( C h i , 1976; P r e s s l e y , L e v i n ,  Although t h e study allows  regardless of the  of strategy information  instructions.  On t h e o t h e r  i n s t r u c t i o n makes a n  difference i n children's generalized strategy  This pointed  t o t h e need f o r a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s .  RATIONALE AND THEORETICAL HYPOTHESES  From an e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e m a i n o b j e c t i v e in  cognitive strategy research  i s t o i d e n t i f y methods and  techniques  t o p r o d u c e "good s t r a t e g y u s e r s "  Borkowski,  & Schneider,  1987).  (Pressley,  In recent years,  there  10  has  b e e n a n i n c r e a s i n g e m p h a s i s upon f a c t o r s  associated  with the continued  u s e and t r a n s f e r o f s t r a t e g i e s  following  strategy  instruction.  subjects'  metamemorial  in  their  this  information  subsequent s t r a t e g y  (Borkowski,  1985; P r e s s l e y  hypothesis,  I t i s hypothesized plays  a critical  role  s e l e c t i o n s and u s e  e t a l . , 1984a).  According  t h e o f t e n documented f a i l u r e  o f y o u n g c h i l d r e n t o m a i n t a i n and g e n e r a l i z e acquired  that  to  on t h e p a r t newly  memory s t r a t e g i e s may be l a r g e l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o  deficient  knowledge about t h e i n s t r u c t e d  (Kendall,  Borkowski,  & Cavanaugh,  strategy  1980; Kramer & E n g l e ,  1981). Closer  examination revealed  t h a t most  research  methodologies involve the t r a i n i n g of a s i n g l e w h i c h i s p r e s u m e d t o be e f f e c t i v e .  strategy  However, a c c o r d i n g  Kreutzer,  Leonard,  & Flavell  effective  strategy  t o e n h a n c e o n e ' s memory p e r f o r m a n c e  ( 1 9 7 5 ) , c h o o s i n g an  d e p e n d s p a r t l y on h a v i n g v a r i o u s from.  to  s t r a t e g i e s t o choose  Young c h i l d r e n o f t e n h a v e f e w e r mnemonic  strategies at their difference  d i s p o s a l than a d u l t s .  i n k n o w l e d g e and a v a i l a b i l i t y  This of strategies  may be one o f t h e m a j o r f a c t o r s u n d e r l y i n g p e r f o r m a n c e b e t w e e n c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s learning The  the different  on memory  tasks. majority  o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on memory s t r a t e g i e s  conducted t o date involved  an immediate t r a n s f e r o f a  11  newly a c q u i r e d on  a single  that  one  strategy.  way  effective  s t r a t e g y , and  to f a c i l i t a t e  The  present  study  knowledge i s i m p o r t a n t  children a  e x a m i n e d one  t o the use  on  Therefore,  accordingly  one  select  r a t h e r than  indiscriminately different  and  such  I t involved Such  strategies.  of a long prose task than  the  t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e the  to a l l tasks.  s t r a t e g i e s b a s e d on  passage  to r e c a l l i t  needs t o r e c o g n i z e  apply  general  t r a n s f e r of  f o r the deployment of  a much l e s s demanding r e t r i e v a l  demand a t hand and  of  general,  t h e t a s k demand.  example, t o remember t h e g i s t  verbatim.  suggested  maintenance  following strategy instruction.  teaching c h i l d r e n to focus  is  long-term  only  t h a t i s r e l e v a n t t o a l l memory  that i s crucial  strategies  For  the  s t r a t e g i e s i s to teach  strategies.  f o c u s u s u a l l y was  P r e s s l e y e t a l . (1984a)  nonspecific principle  principal  their  task  strategy  same s t r a t e g y  Consequently, the use the  of  t a s k demand a t hand  would a i d one's performance. According differentiate  to Wessell  s t r a t e g i e s that are  i n a p p r o p r i a t e to the for  adopting  strategy.  (1982), t h e  and  appropriate  t a s k a t hand may  maintaining  C h o o s i n g an  an  ability  be  effective  effective  calls  for.  For  instance,  remembering a l o n g  list  i f the  o f new  those  mnemonic improving  of the  task c a l l s  vocabulary  from  a prerequisite  strategy for  o n e ' s l e a r n i n g d e p e n d s on what t h e n a t u r e  to  task  for  items,  a  12  strategy  i n v o l v i n g r o t e memory o r r e h e a r s a l may n o t b e  t h e most  effective  s t r a t e g y one c o u l d u s e .  form o f e l a b o r a t i o n appropriate.  On t h e o t h e r  hand,  r e h e a r s a l would be  f o r remembering a t e l e p h o n e  period  o f time.  focus  Since  t h etype  number f o r a s h o r t  and n a t u r e  g r e a t l y f r o m one t o a n o t h e r ,  o f the task  training  children to  on t h e t a s k demand w o u l d e n a b l e them t o h a v e t h e  k n o w l e d g e t o d e t e r m i n e when a n d u n d e r what to apply  a strategy  to analyze  thetask before  research  on t e a c h i n g  applying  such a s t r a t e g y .  primary o b j e c t i v e o f the present a new t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m t o t e a c h  study  Specifically,  two e x p e r i m e n t a l  Instruction  o f HOW t o u s e t h e memory s t r a t e g i e s was t a u g h t any s p e c i f i c  WHEN components. condition  On t h e o t h e r  emphasis p l a c e d  Instead  information  o f merely  strategies of t r a i n i n g  a s most  strategies  on t h e WHY a n d t h e WHEN  f o c u s i n g on t e a c h i n g researchers  (EI)  principle to the  on t h e WHY a n d  hand, s u b j e c t s  received task-specific  memory  conditions,  For the SI c o n d i t i o n , a general  subjects without  The  was t h u s t o d e s i g n  of different  S i m p l e I n s t r u c t i o n (SI) a n d E l a b o r a t e d were e m p l o y e d .  children  primary grade c h i l d r e n  about t h e s p e c i f i c - t a s k i n f o r m a t i o n strategies.  circumstances  effectively.  There h a s been l i t t l e  with  some  ( v e r b a l o r i m a g e r y ) w o u l d b e more  useful  vary  Rather,  i n the EI  information components.  children the  h a v e done, t h e m a i n  focus  i n t h e E I c o n d i t i o n was on t h e a n a l y s i s o f  13  task materials. told  t h a t the  variety  During  the t r a i n i n g  trained strategies could help  of s i m i l a r tasks  which ones.  The  and  i n s t r u c t i o n was  C h i l d r e n were t h e n  prototypic  tasks  and  focused  why  the  be  of the  At the  for  some t a s k s were a l s o d i s c u s s e d and  transfer test application The  examine t h e  effect  t h a t not  with  goal of the present of analyzing the  and  t a s k a t hand  strategies.  a l l s t r a t e g i e s are  equally  Hence, i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d  are  a their  e x p e r i m e n t was  Kerarney,  that  the  s t r a t e g i e s examined.  of t a s k s than  k n o w l e d g e and  of  inappropriate  prototypic tasks  f o r c e r t a i n types  the  of  examples  ability  appropriate  t a s k a t hand w o u l d  the  newly a c q u i r e d  on  appropriate effective  (McDaniel that  & having  to d i f f e r e n t i a t e strategies  from t h o s e  the  others  to  It is  t o a l l t a s k s ; r a t h e r , some s t r a t e g i e s a r e more  1984).  than  demonstrated.  t h e y were p r e s e n t e d  spontaneous t r a n s f e r of e f f e c t i v e believed  tasks  opportunities to p r a c t i c e a f t e r  c o n t a i n i n g new  principal  certain  s t r a t e g y i n such  t r a i n e d s t r a t e g i e s were  Finally,  of the  t o know  on why  same t i m e ,  reasons  instructions.  a  exposed t o a v a r i e t y  and  C h i l d r e n were g i v e n  them on  for certain  the u t i l i t y  s i t u a t i o n s demonstrated.  c h i l d r e n were  t h a t t h e t r i c k was  s t r a t e g i e s were more a p p r o p r i a t e others.  trial,  that are  facilitate  s t r a t e g y t o new  inappropriate to  children in transfering learning materials.  14  Once n a i v e  s u b j e c t s a r e induced  memory s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . , elaborated  Elaborated  through t h e appropriate  such s t r a t e g i e s i n f o r m a t i o n  should  training  on a t r a n s f e r t a s k .  elaborated  v e r s i o n o f such s t r a t e g i e s should  course,  effective  In p a r t i c u l a r , the  i n g r e a t e r t r a n s f e r than the,  both experimental  conditions,  be e f f e c t i v e when  performing  effective  simple  Simple I n s t r u c t i o n ) o r  memory s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . ,  Instruction)  to acquire  simple  conditions should  a s compared t o t h e C o n t r o l  be more ones.  b e more  condition.  Of  15  Chapter  II  METHOD SUBJECTS AND  DESIGN  A number o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a v e p r o p o s e d studies that there i s a s h i f t t o c h i l d r e n ' s use Bjorklund children use  i n development w i t h  o f memory s t r a t e g i e s  & de M a r c h e n a , 1 9 8 4 ) .  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  grade 7).  a s compared w i t h  Beginning  a t a r o u n d g r a d e 3,  a v a i l a b l e t o them  selected  (Lang,  In the present  1973;  study,  their  (e.g., children  strategies that  B j o r k l u n d & de g r a d e 3 and  t r e n d would o c c u r as  in  however,  i n o r d e r t o examine w h e t h e r t h e  developmental  1985;  younger  old children  t e n d t o become more c o n s c i o u s o f t h e  respect  (Bjorklund,  ( e . g . , g r a d e 1) t e n d t o be more n a i v e  of strategies  1984) .  in their  are  Marchena,  5 children  were  same  i n the  previous  studies. A total from  two  o f 108  elementary  British  Columbia.  ability  m i g h t be  s u b j e c t p o o l was  g r a d e 3 and  5 s t u d e n t s were  s c h o o l s i n B u r n a b y and As  i t was  language a b i l i t y ,  to include only those  whose n a t i v e l a n g u a g e i s E n g l i s h .  (PPVT-R), Form L  the students  A l l subjects i n this  s t u d y were a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e Peabody P i c t u r e Test-Revised  Vancouver,  c o n s i d e r e d t h a t memory  c o n f o u n d e d by selected  selected  Vocabulary  (Dunn & Dunn, 1981)  as  a  16  screening the  measure f o r language.  possible  verbal  effect  materials  score  (54 s u b j e c t s  study,  Elaborated girls  Control,  rank  on t h e PPVT-R and b l o c k e d one o f e a c h  t o one o f t h e t h r e e  Instruction(EI).  i n t o 18 triad  conditions of  T h e r e were 17 b o y s a n d 19  and S I c o n d i t i o n s ,  i n the EI c o n d i t i o n .  3 s t u d e n t s was 8.10 y e a r s the  were  Simple I n s t r u c t i o n ( S I ) , and  f o rthe Control  17 g i r l s  on l e a r n i n g t h e  Subjects  f o r each grade);  was r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d the  ability  i n the study.  o r d e r e d by t h e i r triads  of verbal  T h i s was t o c o n t r o l f o r  and 19 b o y s and  The mean age f o r t h e g r a d e  (range=7.6 t o 10.0 y e a r s ) , and  mean age f o r g r a d e 5 s t u d e n t s was 10.10 y e a r s  (range=10.6 t o 12.2 y e a r s ) . For  a l l conditions,  learning materials a transfer task assigned  were g i v e n  (paired-associate  t o study.  Subjects  t o one o f t h e t h r e e  Instruction,  and E l a b o r a t e d  were t a u g h t t o s u b j e c t s Subjects  subjects  two s e t s o f  a n d w o r d - l i s t ) , and were  conditions,  Control,  Instruction.  i n the Control  randomly  No s t r a t e g i e s  condition.  i n t h e Simple I n s t r u c t i o n and  Elaborated  I n s t r u c t i o n were i n s t r u c t e d t o u s e a p p r o p r i a t e strategies in  f o rthe learning tasks.  the Elaborated  specific task.  Their  examined  memory  In addition,  Instruction condition  strategies information  prior  Simple  received  subjects task-  to the transfer  a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e memory s t r a t e g i e s were  f o rthe t r a n s f e r task  when e x p l i c i t i n s t r u c t i o n  17  o f what s t r a t e g i e s t o u s e the  transfer test,  subjects  strategies that  t h e y had  transfer test.  The  treatment  are  Insert  1.  associate are  employed  in recall  features  specified  1 about  first list  i n which the  lists  was  2.  were a l s o  word-list (see  (Carroll,  Categorical The  three  1.  here  a 20-item  stimulus  (see A p p e n d i x A ) .  (1973) d e a l i n g  2316)  of the  the  (PA)  learning task  constructed  with grades  m e d i a n word f r e q u e n c y to  the  during  i n Table  T h e s e noun p a i r s were c h o s e n f r o m t h e Bean  to  of  TRANSFER TASKS  c o n c r e t e nouns  practice  Upon c o m p l e t i o n  were p r o b e d as  Table  Paired-Associate The  absent.  contrasting  conditions  LEARNING AND  was  second  f o r the  Davies,  r e s p o n s e members  In a d d i t i o n ,  two  (see Appendix  C).  s t u d y by 11  children.  was  two  232.0  The  (range=28  1971).  was  a 3 0-item  3 words f r o m e a c h o f  Also  Rohwer &  (WL)  learning task  Appendix B).  list  & Richman,  Word-list  containing  PA  1 to  and  paired-  practice l i s t s  structured  10  categories  were  18  constructed f o r t h e WL al.,  (see Appendix D). s e t was  262.5  (range=3 t o 2625)  Transfer  (Carroll,  consisted of both  w o r d - l i s t items which d i f f e r e n t  tasks.  paired-associate  from t h e l e a r n i n g  T h e r e were 1 0 - i t e m s f r o m t h e PA l i s t  stimulus  and r e s p o n s e i n e a c h p a i r  word-lists  containing  categories  (see Appendix E ) .  For  a l l tasks,  t h e words were p r e - r e c o r d e d  cards  with  two w o r d s p e r c a r d f o r t h e WL  one o f t h r e e  f o r each t a s k . played  displayed  the  with  card.  three  presented cards tape  t o which the  t o and a t t h e same t i m e ,  the printed cards.  The o n s e t  so as t o a l e r t  next  and  were  sequence o f t h e c a r d s  randomly a s s i g n e d  task.  index  the audio  f o r 1 5 - s e c o n d s f o r t h e PA t a s k  f o r t h e WL a bell  Subjects  F o r each p r e s e n t a t i o n ,  was p r e s e n t e d  cm  f o r t h e PA t a s k ,  task.  on an  randomly s e l e c t e d sequences o f  the appropriate  s u b j e c t was  structured  3 words f r o m e a c h o f t h e 5  t a p e a s w e l l a s p r i n t e d on 12.7 x 7.6  words p e r c a r d  with the  and 1 5 - i t e m  audio  s/he  et  Task  The t r a n s f e r t a s k  with  frequency  1971).  3.  and  The m e d i a n word  o f every  Each c a r d  was  and 2 0 - s e c o n d s  c a r d was  s i g n a l e d by  the subject to the presentation of  19  PROCEDURE  The table  experiment  and c h a i r s .  T h e y were t o l d game.  was c o n d u c t e d  i n a classroom  E a c h s u b j e c t was t e s t e d  with a  individually.  t h a t t h e y were g o i n g t o p l a y a memory  A l l subjects received instructions appropriate f o r  t h e c o n d i t i o n t o w h i c h t h e y were a s s i g n e d . e a c h c a r d a l o u d a s i t was p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e words were u n d e r s t o o d  They r e a d  i n order t o ensure  correctly.  F o r t h e p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e t a s k , s u b j e c t s i n t h e two experimental strategy  g r o u p s were i n s t r u c t e d  t o use t h e sentence  t o h e l p them l e a r n t h e PA t a s k w h e r e a s no  s t r a t e g y was i n s t r u c t e d condition.  t o the subjects i n the Control  T h e y were t o l d  t o remember w h i c h two words go  t o g e t h e r as t h e y would have t o s u p p l y t h e response when g i v e n t h e s t i m u l u s word. p a i r s were p r e s e n t e d f o l l o w e d by a n o t h e r were p r e s e n t e d  first  to illustrate  two p a i r s  t o follow.  learning t r i a l s . were p r e s e n t e d  the instructions  For the r e c a l l  They  that the and t h e  misunderstanding  before they proceeded  one a t a t i m e ,  seconds t o r e c a l l  the procedure,  t o ensure  Any a p p a r e n t  i n s t r u c t i o n s was c l a r i f i e d  o f two noun  (see Appendix C ) .  as p r a c t i c e t r i a l s  s u b j e c t s had indeed understood procedure  A sample l i s t  test,  words  of  t o the  t h e s t i m u l u s words  a n d s u b j e c t s were g i v e n 3 0  the corresponding  response  word.  The  20  recall  t e s t was g i v e n  immediately  after  each l e a r n i n g  trial. Similarly,  f o r the w o r d - l i s t task,  two e x p e r i m e n t a l  assist  their  and u s e t h e c a t e g o r y - n a m e a s a c u e  l e a r n i n g o f t h e words and no s t r a t e g y was  mentioned t o t h e s u b j e c t s  i n the Control  the  end o f t h e t a s k ,  were g i v e n  and  s u b j e c t s had t o r e c a l l  category. followed  At  name,  items i n t h a t  were u s e d a s a d e m o n s t r a t i o n , as p r a c t i c e t r i a l s (see  A f t e r a l l p o t e n t i a l m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s were  s u b j e c t s were g i v e n  learn followed  order  condition.  the category  the three  b y a n o t h e r two c a r d s  clarified, to  they  Two word c a r d s  Appendix D).  i n the  c o n d i t i o n s were i n s t r u c t e d t o g r o u p t h e  words i n t o a c a t e g o r y to  subjects  of the tasks  the actual word-list  immediately by t h e r e c a l l (i.e.,  test.  task The  p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and w o r d - l i s t )  p r e s e n t a t i o n were c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d .  For c l a r i t y , the  f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e d e s c r i p t i o n s assumed t h a t t h e p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e task preceded the w o r d - l i s t  CONTROL CONDITION.  A list  task.  of paired-associate  items  i n T a s k 1 ( s e e A p p e n d i x A) were p r e s e n t e d  t o the subjects  and  a s many p a i r s  as  they they  were a s k e d t o s t u d y could  i n the r e c a l l  T a s k 1 was g i v e n . word-list recall  a n d remember test.  Recall test  Then s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d  f o r the with the  i n T a s k 2 ( s e e A p p e n d i x B ) , and f o l l o w e d b y t h e  test  (see Appendix F ) .  21  SIMPLE INSTRUCTION that  one way  together This  t o remember  Subjects  illustrated  a n d s u b j e c t s were g i v e n  practice.  A list  b y u s i n g t h e two  another  presented  pairs.  The r e c a l l  Following the r e c a l l  test,  ( s e e A p p e n d i x B) was p r e s e n t e d  sample  two c a r d s t o i n Task 1  t o them a n d s u b j e c t s  were a s k e d t o u s e t h e s e n t e n c e g e n e r a t i o n these  told  t h e words.  o f p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e items  ( s e e A p p e n d i x A) were t h e n  remember  were  w h i c h p a i r o f words g o e s  i s t o make a s e n t e n c e t o c o n n e c t  i n s t r u c t i o n was  cards,  CONDITION.  strategy to  t e s t was t h e n  given.  t h e w o r d - l i s t i n Task 2 to the subjects.  They  were i n s t r u c t e d t o l e a r n t h e words on e a c h c a r d a s a group and u s e t h e c a t e g o r y The and,  name t o h e l p them  i n s t r u c t i o n s were i l l u s t r a t e d s u b j e c t s were g i v e n  Recall  test  another  with  remember.  two sample  cards  two c a r d s  to practice.  o f t h e t e n w o r d - l i s t s was t h e n  administered  (see Appendix G).  ELABORATED INSTRUCTION to t h i s  Subjects  assigned  c o n d i t i o n r e c e i v e d t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s and  followed the i d e n t i c a l subjects  CONDITION.  p r o c e d u r e as t h o s e  given to the  i n t h e Simple I n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n .  a f t e r t h e second r e c a l l task-specific  test,  they  However,  received additional  i n f o r m a t i o n on memory s t r a t e g i e s ,  with  22  emphasis p l a c e d the  on d e t a i l i n g  s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d be employed  Following  t h e second r e c a l l  c o n d i t i o n s were t o l d  t h a t they  more t i m e a n d t h a t t h e y want.  (see Appendix H).  test,  subjects  in all  c o u l d p l a y t h e game one they  I t was e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e g o a l was t o remember a s  h e l p f u l t o the task  the  o f t a s k t o which  c o u l d p l a y t h e game however  many i t e m s a s p o s s i b l e u s i n g be  t h e type  experiment,  (see Appendix E ) .  had used d u r i n g  selected that particular  think  would  A t t h e end o f  a l l s u b j e c t s were i n t e r v i e w e d  which s t r a t e g y they why t h e y  s t r a t e g i e s they  t o examine  t h e t r a n s f e r t a s k and  strategy  (see Appendix  I) • The  dependent v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s  number o f i t e m s c o r r e c t l y appropriate predicted result  that the Elaborated  appropriately,  result  a r e t h e mean  and t h e u s e o f  s t r a t e g i e s on t h e t r a n s f e r t a s k .  i n the best  condition.  recalled  study  recall  I n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n would  and t r a n s f e r t h e s t r a t e g i e s  f o l l o w e d by t h e Simple I n s t r u c t i o n  By c o m p a r i s o n , t h e C o n t r o l  i n least  I t was  recall  t h e memory s t r a t e g i e s .  c o n d i t i o n would  and l e s s e f f e c t i v e  i n transfer of  23  Chapter I I I  RESULTS  To both of  assess the e f f e c t  learning  items  of the experimental  variable  a n d t r a n s f e r p e r f o r m a n c e , t h e mean  correctly  r e c a l l e d was u s e d  dependent v a r i a b l e .  number  as t h e s o l e  A p r e l i m i n a r y i n s p e c t i o n of the data  r e v e a l e d no d i f f e r e n c e due t o g e n d e r , t h e d a t a collapsed  on  across g i r l s  were  and boys i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s .  Since  t h e two p e r f o r m a n c e m e a s u r e s f o r t h e p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and t h e c a t e g o r i c a l w o r d - l i s t were n o t d i r e c t l y  comparable,  t h e y were a n a l y z e d  (3 a n d 5) x 3  Conditions  (Control,  Instruction) The 3 was and  102  s e p a r a t e l y i n a 2 Grades Simple  factorial  mean s t a n d a r d  Instruction,  design. s c o r e o f t h e PPVT-R  (range=72 t o 137, s t a n d a r d  f o r t h e g r a d e 5 was  deviation=18.03).  and E l a b o r a t e d  105  deviation=16.83),  (range=75 t o 137,  An i n i t i a l  s c o r e s shows no s i g n i f i c a n t  examination  treatment  (p>.05) w i t h any o t h e r f a c t o r .  was d e c i d e d  t o drop  t h e PPVT-R  test  data.  o f t h e PPVT-R  Therefore, i t  s c o r e s from  i n order t o gain s t a t i s t i c a l  f o r examining  standard  and a p t i t u d e  interaction  analyses  f o r t h e grade  further  power a n d p a r s i m o n y  24  ANALYSIS OF 1.  LEARNING  PERFORMANCE  Paired-Associate(PA)  The  mean number o f  paired-associate  and  t r a n s f e r phases are  items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d f o r  w o r d - l i s t at the shown i n T a b l e  subjects  i n the  Instruction  in  Elaborated  (EI)  Instruction  conditions  9.06  i n the items  vs.  Control (4.44  The  significant, Figure  that  of  1.  f o r g r a d e 5,  c o n d i t i o n had  and  5.61  the  vs.  the  8.44  Simple same mean  f o r grade 3  least recall  f o r g r a d e 3 and on  the  main e f f e c t o f the  F(2,  and  respectively).  Subjects of  correct  5, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . recall  strategy  measure training  102)=45.086, MSe=3.728, p<.01, as  Neither  the  main e f f e c t o f t h e  i t s i n t e r a c t i o n with the  significant, strategy  (8.72  a n a l y s i s of variance  showed t h a t  in  8.83  general,  r e c a l l e d about the  number o f c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s and  here  o f T a b l e 2 shows t h a t ,  (SI)  and  2.  I n s e r t T a b l e 2 about  Inspection  learning  however.  t r a i n i n g was  The  strategy  significant  further traced  both t r a i n i n g conditions  grade  was shown  nor  treatment  was  main e f f e c t o f  to the  fact  the  that  were h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e d u r i n g  the  25  l e a r n i n g phase w i t h PA l i s t s , condition  (5.03  vs.  8.76),  as compared to the  Control  F(1,102)=89.87, p<.0001; and  t h a t the two s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r from one another s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,  F(l,102)<1.0.  I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here  2.  C a t e g o r i c a l W o r d - L i s t (WL) I n s p e c t i o n of Table 2 r e v e a l s t h a t the mean number  o f items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d i n c r e a s e d as a f u n c t i o n o f grade.  In g e n e r a l ,  grade 5 s u b j e c t s  than grade 3 s u b j e c t s .  r e c a l l e d more items  The developmental t r e n d was  also  shown i n the subsequent a n a l y s i s which i n d i c a t e d the main e f f e c t of Grade [ F ( l , 102)=6.182, MSe=10.568, significant.  The main e f f e c t of the s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g  c o n d i t i o n s was not s i g n i f i c a n t , was i t s  p<.05] was  i n t e r a c t i o n with grades,  F(2,102)=1.122 p>.05, nor F(1,102)<1.0,  indicating  t h a t the s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g d i d not make any d i f f e r e n c e on subjects* 2,  l e a r n i n g of the w o r d - l i s t .  grade 5 s u b j e c t s  l e a r n as e f f e c t i v e l y  i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n appeared to as the EI s u b j e c t s  b e t t e r than the SI s u b j e c t s respectively),  As shown i n F i g u r e  (25.22 v s .  or  slightly  25.11  and 23.83,  w h i l e grade 3 s u b j e c t s  appeared to perform  b e s t under the EI c o n d i t i o n , a l i t t l e  b e t t e r under the SI  26  condition. the  However,  this  strategy training  i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n g r a d e s and  c o n d i t i o n s was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t ,  F(2,102)<1.0.  Insert  ANALYSIS OF TRANSFER 1.  F i g u r e 2 about here  PERFORMANCE  Paired-Associate(PA) For the t r a n s f e r task,  any  a l l s u b j e c t s were t o l d  t o use  s t r a t e g y t h e y t h o u g h t w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e t o h e l p  them  l e a r n t h e words.  condition  and g r a d e s .  correctly  recalled  c o n d i t i o n were score  2.61,  The mean number o f i t e m s  3.23,  o f 5, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  102)=7.253,  2 shows t h e means f o r e a c h  by s u b j e c t s i n t h e C o n t r o l , S I , and E I  t h a t t h e main e f f e c t [F(2,  Table  and 3.89  out o f the p o s s i b l e  Analysis of variance indicated  of the strategy t r a i n i n g  MSe=2.027, p<.01] was  shown i n F i g u r e 3. be o n l y m a r g i n a l l y  The m a i n e f f e c t significant,  significant,  F(1,102)=2.631 p < . l l ,  i n t e r a c t i o n between g r a d e and t r a i n i n g  not  significant,  first  as  of grade appeared t o  the  Further analyses  Conditions  conditions  and was  as i n t h e l e a r n i n g phase, F(2,102)<1.0. o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t  revealed  t h a t t h e two s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s were e f f e c t i v e i n  i n d u c i n g a p p r o p r i a t e memory s t r a t e g i e s ,  a s compared t o  27  the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n  (3.56  vs.  2.61),  F(1,102)=10.56,  p<.002 and t h a t the EI s u b j e c t s r e c a l l e d more than the SI s u b j e c t s F(l,102)=3.945,  (3.89  vs.  significantly  3.23),  p<.05.  I n s e r t F i g u r e 3 about here  2.  C a t e g o r i c a l W o r d - l i s t (WL) T r a n s f e r performance on the c a t e g o r i c a l  t a s k show somewhat d i f f e r e n t  features  t r a i n i n g as w e l l as grades e f f e c t s , F i g u r e 4.  The a n a l y s i s  of the  word-list strategy  as can be seen i n  of v a r i a n c e performed on the  r e c a l l measure showed t h a t the main e f f e c t s of Grades [F(l,  102)=11.256, p<.01] and the s t r a t e g y  Conditions  [F(2,  significant.  102)=14.221 MSe=7.424,  training  p<.01) were  The developmental t r e n d (5.98  of t o t a l possible respectively)  i s c l e a r l y shown, but i t does not  vs.  6.00  vs.  8.83)  interact  strategy  r e v e a l e d t h a t the  memory s t r a t e g i e s induced are more e f f e c t i v e performance than to the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n 7.42),  out  training condition.  F u r t h e r a n a l y s e s of the e f f e c t s of the t h r e e (5.75  7.74  score of 15 f o r grade 3 and 5,  w i t h the e f f e c t of the s t r a t e g y  conditions  vs.  two  for r e c a l l  (5.75  vs.  F ( l , 1 0 2 ) = 8 . 9 8 , p<.003, and t h a t the EI s u b j e c t s  out  performed the  SI  subjects,  F ( l , 1 0 2 ) = 1 9 . 4 6 3 , p<.0001. suggests that  the  transfer task  is limited.  made t o  SI  significant, SI  and  (Scheffe's strategy the  as  their  while the  EI  own  strategy  words, t h e  simple,  recall  of  Control  between t h e highly  have a g r e a t e r  from s u b j e c t s ' the  elaborate very  task  categorical word-list.  Insert  Figure  4 about  not  and  the  here  the  SI  spontaneously, intended In  did other  i n s t r u c t i o n was  strategy  e f f e c t i v e where t h e  was  significant  spontaneous s t r a t e g y  specific  the  presumably  strategy  strategy  the  were  EI  t r a n s f e r performance.  general  on  e f f e c t than  presumably i n d u c e d as the  4  between  T h i s means t h a t  noninstructed  e f f e c t on  f o u n d t o be  of the  c o n d i t i o n c o m b i n e d was  have g r e a t  but  post-hoc contrasts  that  =3.94).  Figure  strategy  c o n d i t i o n under which s u b j e c t s  would use  own;  SI  A simple contrast  induced d i d not  Control  different  Two  c o n d i t i o n and  F(2,102)  6.00),  examination of  w h e r e a s a complex one  Control  vs.  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the  investigate i t .  mean o f t h e  An  (8.83  of  no  their  instruction demand i s  was the  29  3.  Strategy-Choice Table  reported  3 lists  as  Data  the  four c a t e g o r i e s of s t r a t e g i e s  employed under t h e  Insert Table  Inspection EI  of t h i s  Table  three  conditions.  3 about  here  indicates that subjects  c o n d i t i o n c o r r e c t l y t r a n s f e r r e d the  strategies  f o r the  respectively).  PA  and  (52.8%) and  tasks  About h a l f o f t h e  c o n d i t i o n t r a n s f e r r e d the task  WL  subjects  l e s s than o n e - t h i r d  88.9%,  i n the  of the  subjects  i n the  SI  strategy  i n the  (30.6%) o f  the  s u b j e c t s t r a n s f e r r e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y f o r t h e WL majority  task.  s t r a t e g i e s a p p r o p r i a t e l y f o r both of the  and  tasks  (63.9% and  subjects  f o r the  i n the  appropriate  EI  On  l e s s than one-third condition  the m a j o r i t y  c o n d i t i o n acknowledged t h e  of  realized  word-list tasks  the  other  (89.19% and  hand, o n l y h a l f  (32.35%) o f t h e the  PA  subjects  the  benefits  s t r a t e g i e s i n h e l p i n g them t o r e c a l l  respectively).  not  reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g the  t r a n s f e r task,  p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and  The  55.6%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  When a s k e d t o g i v e t h e i r strategies  PA  Control condition did  employ t h e t h e WL  the  appropriate  (91.7% and  appropriate  in  both  of the  86.49%,  (52.94%) i n the  SI  advantages of t r a n s f e r r i n g the  and  30  appropriate  s t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and w o r d -  list  respectively.  tasks,  Control benefits their  condition reported  Most o f t h e s u b j e c t s that they  o f employing a p p r o p r i a t e  recall  i n the  d i d not r e a l i z e the  strategies i n assisting  (75.68% and 72.97% f o r t h e PA and WL  respectively).  Insert Table  4 about  here  tasks,  Chapter  IV  DISCUSSION AND  A major goal  of the  CONCLUSION  p r e s e n t s t u d y was  w h e t h e r t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on t r a i n i n g would f a c i l i t a t e strategies  new  study  indicate  a positive  amount o f  specific  i n f o r m a t i o n one  and  recalled.  In g e n e r a l ,  the  t a s k was  specific  information  transfer  task.  transfer  learning of  the  findings  Instruction  the  effective  Results of  items use  on  the  correctly  of  function  the  between  receives  strategies of  the  support the  on  Statistically  to  which included  the  that  they  new  significant  i n the  the  received  more l i k e l y  appropriately  occurred mainly  condition  the  the  task-  hypothesis  information subjects  strategies  situations.  strategies  strategy  relationship  memory s t r a t e g i e s , the  determine  instruction provided p r i o r to  more t a s k - s p e c i f i c  concerning the  subjects'  v e r y much a  The  of  materials.  mean number o f  transfer  will  transfer  learning  strategies  the  memory  to  present the  the  to  transfer  Elaborated task-specific  information. Initially, m i g h t be the &  i t was  c o n f o u n d e d by  thought that  memory p e r f o r m a n c e  one's language a b i l i t y .  PPVT-R i s u s e d t o m e a s u r e r e c e p t i v e  Dunn, 1 9 8 1 ) ,  i t was  found not  to  Although  vocabulary  differentially  (Dunn affect  32  the  metamemorial r e t r i e v a l  paired-associate  strategies  and c a t e g o r i c a l  Few d i f f e r e n c e s  were f o u n d b e t w e e n t h e two  both experimental conditions  condition  and  In contrast,  had t h e l e a s t r e c a l l  condition.  subjects  i n the Control  of correct since  items. both  The d i f f e r e n c e  after the subjects  condition  received  Careful  of recalling appeared  i n the transfer Instruction  information.  of the r e s u l t s provide evidence f o r  of the task-specific  information  transfer  o f e f f e c t i v e memory s t r a t e g i e s .  transfer  o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e memory s t r a t e g i e s  i n the EI condition  condition  1  3).  they w i l l  situation. indicate  Overall, the  transfer  occurred  result i s i n (1984)  findings.  t h e more i n f o r m a t i o n  a b o u t t h e memory s t r a t e g i e s ,  t h e more  t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e new  Similarly, results  that  This  and P r e s s l e y ' s  According t o these researchers, subjects received  on t h e  a n d n o t much s o i n t h e S I  ( a s shown i n T a b l e  accord with O Sullivan  likely  trials  and t r a n s f e r r i n g  i n the Elaborated  the task-specific  analysis  effectiveness  mainly  groups  i n s t r u c t i o n was g i v e n t o t h e C o n t r o l  a p p r o p r i a t e memory s t r a t e g i e s  the  Subjects i n  i d e n t i c a l instruction during the learning  no s t r a t e g y  task,  trials.  r e c a l l e d a b o u t t h e same mean  However, t h i s f i n d i n g was e x p e c t e d received  on t h e  word-list.  experimental groups i n t h e l e a r n i n g  numbers o f i t e m s .  of children  the task-specific  i n the present  study  information d i d provide a  33  guiding  function f o r subjects' a b i l i t y  to transfer  e f f e c t i v e memory s t r a t e g i e s t o new m a t e r i a l s  on  their  own. It  i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o p o i n t out t h a t grade 5  i n t h e C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n appeared t o l e a r n as as  t h e EI s u b j e c t s  f o r t h e WL  subjects  effectively  i n the learning t r i a l .  seemed t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r t h a t t h e s e  s u b j e c t s had  spontaneously discovered  strategy i n  assisting their  their  an e f f e c t i v e  learning of the word-list.  s e l f - i n d u c e d s t r a t e g y had l i m i t e d  transfer task.  T h i s was e v i d e n t  performance during  However,  effects  from t h e i r  the t r a n s f e r test,  It  on t h e  poor  a s shown  i n Table  2. It subjects  i s also interesting  i n t h e C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n were assumed t o h a v e  spontaneously discovered strategy  f o r t h e WL,  grade 3 s u b j e c t s . use  was  t o note t h a t only grade 5  the e f f e c t i v e  and t h i s  a l s o n o t e d by o t h e r  1982).  not found  This developmental trend researchers  & de M a r c h e n a , 1984; Moynahan, Waters,  t r e n d was  category-naming  i n strategy  (e.g.,  1978; Rohwer,  Bjorklund  1980;  I t appeared t h a t grade 5 s u b j e c t s  more aware o f t h e n a t u r e  i n the  of the task than t h e i r  were  younger  peers. R e s p o n s e s on t h e s t r a t e g y - c h o i c e d a t a majority  of subjects  indicated that  i n t h e E I c o n d i t i o n were a b l e t o  transfer the appropriate  strategies according  to the task  34  demand.  Only about h a l f and l e s s than o n e - t h i r d s u b j e c t s  i n the SI and C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s ,  respectively,  t o t o t r a n s f e r the s t r a t e g i e s a p p r o p r i a t e l y . j u s t i f y i n g t h e i r c h o i c e of s t r a t e g i e s ,  were able  When  most s u b j e c t s i n  the EI c o n d i t i o n were a b l e to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r reasons  in  r e g a r d t o enhancing t h e i r r e c a l l when a p p l y i n g the strategies,  as shown i n T a b l e 4.  Most of the s u b j e c t s i n  the SI c o n d i t i o n who r e p o r t e d t o have employed suitable  the  s t r a t e g i e s d i d not acknowledge the b e n e f i t s o f  u t i l i z i n g the e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s .  The m a j o r i t y of  s u b j e c t s i n t h a t c o n d i t i o n c o u l d not g i v e any reason why they s e l e c t e d the s t r a t e g i e s and some of them reasoned t h a t those were the s t r a t e g i e s t h a t the  experimenter  taught them t o use f o r the l e a r n i n g t a s k . The data r e p o r t e d here c o r r o b o r a t e other finding  (e.g.,  G h a t a l a et a l . ,  1985)  that  research s 1  explicit  i n f o r m a t i o n and the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of memory s t r a t e g i e s are fundamental i n o r d e r t o produce g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and d u r a b l e use of the s t r a t e g i e s . o t h e r words,  In  s u b j e c t s not o n l y need t o know which  s t r a t e g i e s t o use under a p p r o p r i a t e circumstances  but  a l s o a r e r e q u i r e d to have a c l e a r understanding of why the s t r a t e g i e s are a p p r o p r i a t e i n those s i t u a t i o n s . the p r e s e n t  study,  s u b j e c t s i n the EI c o n d i t i o n had t h a t  u n d e r s t a n d i n g and were a b l e to a r t i c u l a t e the r e a d i l y when asked.  In  reasons  On the c o n t r a r y , those s u b j e c t s i n  35  the SI c o n d i t i o n apply the a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s but l a c k the  understanding of why they d i d  Consequently,  it.  l o n g term maintenance of the  strategies  would not be as apparent as s u b j e c t s i n the EI c o n d i t i o n . The concept of t e a c h i n g students t o analyze demands before s e l e c t i n g  an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y  o n e ' s l e a r n i n g on a t a s k i s s t i l l research along t h i s  this  to  help  r a t h e r n o v e l ; more  area i s recommended.  p o i n t s are noteworthy  task  However, a few  for future i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  First,  study employed two types of the most f r e q u e n t l y used  s t r a t e g i e s f o r elementary s t u d e n t s , and category-naming. and c o n c l u s i o n s tasks,  sentence-generation  In o r d e r t o g e n e r a l i z e  the  findings  to a broader p o p u l a t i o n , a wide range of  memory s t r a t e g i e s ,  and age groups are recommended  for future research. Secondly, recall.  this  study mainly focused on s h o r t term  The e f f e c t on l o n g term r e c a l l by i n s t r u c t i n g  the s u b j e c t s t o analyze t a s k demands b e f o r e s e l e c t i n g appropriate strategy  i s not c l e a r .  of t h i s g e n e r a l p r i n c i p a l , also f a c i l i t a t e strategies.  Given the  rationale  one would expect t h a t i t  will  long term t r a n s f e r of e f f e c t i v e memory  However, no c o n c l u s i v e statement can be made  without f u r t h e r  investigation.  In a d d i t i o n , the two t a s k s employed i n the study seem t o i n v o l v e two presumably d i f f e r e n t processes,  an  sentence s t r u c t u r e process  (PA) and  present task  36  categorical that to  grade  process  5 subjects  spontaneously  and y e t learning  trial.  strategy  is  It  i n the  appears Control  do so It  is  for the  effectively  strategy  PA t a s k  suggested that  congruent with b a s i c  and c o n s e q u e n t l y  from t h e  perhaps  cognitive  However,  specific  able  f o r t h e WL  during  the category  organization  t h e s e s u b j e c t s were a b l e  with tasks that  findings  c o n d i t i o n were  i n d u c e an e f f e c t i v e  unable to  process.  (WL).  to  involve  the  reasons  for this  p e r f o r m more  categorical unexpected  p e r f o r m a n c e c a n n o t be d e t e r m i n e d a t  this  investigation  two t a s k p r o c e s s e s  of  the  memory s t r a t e g i e s I n summary, hypothesis  that  r a t h e r they specific  of  results  i n the  the  t h a n one t a s k  to  l e a r n and i t  p r o m p t s t u d e n t s what t o  of  if  will  t a s k w i t h a most e n a b l e s them t o  task-  the  situations. for  education.  feasible  new s i t u a t i o n .  s t u d e n t s have been t a u g h t  the  to On  general  demands and m a t c h i n g  appropriate strategy, think f i r s t  more  transfer  w o u l d n o t be  task  the  c o n f r o n t e d w i t h more  do i n e v e r y  a n a l y z i n g the  support  c o n c e r n i n g memory  have p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s  other hand,  on  task-general,  new l e a r n i n g  students are often  principle  are not  receive  In a c t u a l i t y ,  the  study  Moreover, the  more l i k e l y t h e y  appropriately to  findings  present  memory s t r a t e g i e s  information subjects  strategies  the  Future  recommended.  are t a s k - s p e c i f i c .  strategies,  These  is  effects  time.  this  and t h e n a c t  the  information  accordingly.  37  Since the p r i n c i p a l situation, it  i s n o t l i m i t e d t o one  specific  s t u d e n t s can t h e r e f o r e s p o n t a n e o u s l y  to a variety  o f new  learning  situations.  transfer  38  REFERENCES  Appel,  L . F . , Cooper, R . C , M c C a r r e l l ,  J.,  Yussen,  development  S.R.,  & Flavell, J.H.  J.M. , Butterfield,  (1982).  Sternberg  D.F.  and  1365-1381.  E . C , & Ferretti, R.P. instruct  In D . K . Detterman & R . J .  Norwood, N . J . : A b l e x .  (1985).  The r o l e of  knowledge i n the development c h i l d r e n ' s memory.  Progress  The  ( E d s . ) , How and How Much Can I n t e l l i g e n c e  Be Increased?  (Eds.),  43.,  To secure t r a n s f e r of t r a i n i n g  self-management s k i l l s .  Bjorklund,  (1972).  of d i s t i n c t i o n between p r o c e s s i n g  memorizing. C h i l d Development,  Belmont,  N . , Sims-Knight,  of o r g a n i z a t i o n  in  In. C . J . Brainerd & M.Pressley  B a s i c p r o c e s s e s i n memory i n C o g n i t i v e Development.  Springer-Verlag.  conceptual  development: New York:  39  Bjorklund,  D.F.,  & de M a r c h e n a , M.R.  Developmental  shifts  i n the basis of organization i n  memory: The  role  relatedness  in children's  D e v e l o p m e n t . 55,  Borkowski,  J.G.  (Ed.), York:  The  of a s s o c i a t i v e versus free r e c a l l .  Signs of i n t e l l i g e n c e :  and m e t a c o g n i t i o n .  Growth o f R e f l e c t i o n  (1978).  I n S.R.  Strategy Yussen  i n Children.  Knowing when, where, and  remember: A p r o b l e m  i n metacognition.  (Ed.), Advances i n I n s t r u c t i o n a l 1).  Brown, A.L.,  Hillsdale,  N.J.:  Campione, J . C . ,  Learning to learn: from t e x t .  Carroll,  Child  New  Academic P r e s s .  Brown, A.L.  (Vol.  categorical  952-962.  (1985).  generalization  (1984).  J.B.,  Frequency Publishing  On  Book.  New  Co.,  Inc..  Glaser  Erlbaum.  & Day,  training  J.D.  (1981).  students to  & Richman, B. York:  I n R.  to  Psychology.  Educational Researcher.  D a v i e s , P.,  how  American  10,  learn  14-21.  (1971). Heritage  Word  Cavanaugh, J . C ,  & B o r k o w s k i , J.G.  (1979).  metamemory-memory c o n n e c t i o n : training  and  Psychology.  Chi,  M.T.H.  101,  (1976).  children:  4,  Short-term  strategy  General  memory l i m i t a t i o n s  or processing d e f i c i t s ?  in  Memory  559-572.  & Dunn, L.M.  Vocabulary  Journal of  of  161-174.  Capacity  Cognition,  Dunn, L.M.  maintenance.  Effects  The  (1981).  Test-Revised  Peabody P i c t u r e  (Form LO.  Minnesota:  American Guidance S e r v i c e .  Flavell,  J.H.  (1971).  First  discussants  What i s memory d e v e l o p m e n t t h e Human D e v e l o p m e n t . 14,  Flavell,  J.H.  R.V.  Kail  Hagan  (1977).  Ghatala,  In  ( E d s . ) , P e r s p e c t i v e s on  the  Cognition.  Hillsdale,  Erlbaum.  E.S.,  (1985). Children. 22.,  of?  Metamemory.  D e v e l o p m e n t o f Memory and N.J.:  development  172-178.  & Wellman, H.M. & J.W.  comments:  L e v i n , J.R.,  P r e s s l e y , M.,  & Lodico,  Training cognitive strategy-monitoring  M.G. in  American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l ,  199-215.  41  Kail,  R.V. & Hagan, J.W.  (1977).  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 o f Memory and C o g n i t i o n . N.J.:  Kendall,  Hillsdale,  Erlbaum.  C.R.,  (1980).  Borkowski,  J.G., & Cavanaugh, J . C .  Metamemory and t h e t r a n s f e r o f a n  interrogative  s t r a t e g y b y EMR  Intelligence.  4, 255-270.  Kramer, J . J . & E n g l e , R.W.  children.  (1981).  Teaching  awareness  of s t r a t e g i c behavior i n combination with training: Journal  Effects  on c h i l d r e n ' s memory  of Experimental C h i l d  strategy  performance.  Psychology.  32, 513-  530.  K r e u t z e r , M.A.,  Leonard,  C., & F l a v e l l ,  J.H.  i n t e r v i e w s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge memory. Child  Monographs f o r t h e S o c i e t y  D e v e l o p m e n t . 40, S e r i a l  L a n g e G.W.  (1973).  rote r e c a l l Journal  An  about  f o r Research i n  No. 159.  The d e v e l o p m e n t  skills  (1975).  o f c o n c e p t u a l and  among s c h o o l age c h i l d r e n .  of Experimental Child  P s y c h o l o g y . 15.  394-407.  L o d i c o , M.G.,  G h a t a l a , E., L e v i n ,  J.R., P r e s s l e y ,  M.,  &  42  Bell,  J.A.  training  (1983) .  on c h i l d r e n ' s  strategies.  M.A.  learning  and  strategies  E.M.  (1984).  Optimal  a n d t h e i r s p o n t a n e o u s u s e : The Memory  12, 361-373.  (1978).  A s s e s s m e n t and s e l e c t i o n o f  paired-associate strategies: Journal  Child  of task-appropriate processing.  Cognition.  Moynahan, E.D.  o f e f f e c t i v e memory  35, 263-277.  & Kerarney,  importance  selection  o f strategy-  Journal of Experimental  Psychology.  McDaniel,  The e f f e c t s  A developmental  of Experimental C h i l d  study.  P s y c h o l o g y . 26,  257-266.  Naus, M.J., O r n s t e i n , P.A., & A v i a n o ,  S.  (1977).  D e v e l o p m e n t a l c h a n g e s i n memory: T h e e f f e c t s o f processing of  i t e m and r e h e a r s a l  Experimental Child  O'Sullivan,  Psychology,  J . & P r e s s l e y , M.  instruction Experimental  instruction.  (1984).  and s t r a t e g y t r a n s f e r . Child  Psychology,  Journal  23., 237-251.  Completeness o f Journal of  38, 275-288.  Paris,  S.G.,  Newman, R.S.,  Learning  the  & McVey, K.A.  f u n c t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f mnemonic  actions: A microgenetic acquisition.. Psychology,  Pressley,  M.  M.  Journal  34,  study of  of Experimental  Elaboration  Pressley,  M.  & Dennis-Rounds, J .  o f two  age  & Levin,  (1977).  J.R.  i n subjects'  296-309.  (1980).  Psychology.  s t r a t e g i e s and  Child  memory  of Educational  differences  Journal  and  C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 53,  mnemonic k e y w o r d s t r a t e g y Journal  strategy  490-509.  (1982).  development.  Pressley,  (1982).  Transfer  of  levels.  72.,  575-582.  Developmental  association-learning  performance: Assessing  a  hypothesis  of Experimental C h i l d Psychology.  24.,  431-439.  Pressley,  M.,  (1984a). this:  B o r k o w s k i , J.G., Memory s t r a t e g y  Metamemory and  Educational  & O'Sullivan,  i n s t r u c t i o n i s made o f  durable strategy  Psychologist.  J.T.  19,  84-107.  use.  44  Pressley,  M.,  B o r k o w s k i , J.G., & S c h n e i d e r ,  Cognitive  strategies:  metacognition  (Vol.  Pressley,  (1987).  Good s t r a t e g y u s e r s  and knowledge.  Annals of C h i l d  W.  coordinate  I n R. V a s t a  Development A R e s e a r c h  (Ed.),  Annal  4 ) . G r e e n w i c h , CT: J A I P r e s s .  M.,  G.V.  Heisel,  (1982).  children.  Memory s t r a t e g y  In C.J. Brainerd  Progressing; Verbal  B.E., M c C o r m i c k , C.G., & Nakamura,  Cognitive  Processes  instruction  Se M. P r e s s l e y  with (Eds.),  Development R e s e a r c h . V o l .  i n Children.  New Y o r k :  2.  Springer-  Verlag.  Pressley,  M.,  Levin,  J.R., & G h a t a l a ,  Memory s t r a t e g y m o n i t o r i n g Journal  of Verbal  E.S.  (1984b).  i n adults  and c h i l d r e n .  L e a n i n g and V e r b a l  B e h a v i o r . 23,  270-288.  Pressley,  M.,  R o s s , K.A., L e v i n ,  (1984c). children's  J.R., & G h a t a l a ,  The r o l e o f s t r a t e g y u t i l i t y s t r a t e g y d e c i s i o n making.  Experimental Child  Psychology,  E.S.  knowledge i n Journal of  38, 491-504.  45  Ringel,  B.A.  well use  & S p r i n g e r , C.J.  one  i s r e m e m b e r i n g : The  during transfer.  Psychology.  Rohwer, W.D.  29.  Jr.  childhood  8.).  Rohwer, W.D.  Jr.  York:  Instruction.  Rohwer, W.D., and  An  H.  Behavior,  Snow, P.A.  Frederico,  N.J.:  and  Erlbaum.  (1973).  Sentence  effects  interaction Child  521-533.  & Flavell,  J.H.  (1976).  81-89.  B e h a v i o r a l and  of s t r a t e g i c  remember i n s t r u c t i o n s  D e v e l o p m e n t . 47.,  in  (Ed.),  Journal of Experimental  meta-mnemonic i n d i c a t o r s under  Reese  l e a r n i n g : A development  15,  Child  learning  (Eds.), Aptitude. Learning,  during adolescence.  Salatas,  I n R.E.  J r . & Bean, J . P .  Psychology.  strategy-  elaborative conception of  Hillsdale,  noun-pair  how  Academic P r e s s .  (1980).  Montague  I n H.W.  D e v e l o p m e n t and  learning difference. & W.E.,  persistence of  E l a b o r a t i o n and  adolescence.  New  knowing  Journal of Experimental  (1973).  and  On  322-333.  Advances i n C h i l d (Vol.  (1980).  in first  behaviors grade.  Child  46  Waters, H . S .  (1982).  Memory development  R e l a t i o n s h i p between metamemory, performance. Psychology.  i n adolescence:  s t r a t e g y use,  J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d 33.,  183-195.  Waters. H . S . , & Andreassen, C.  (1983).  C h i l d r e n ' s use  of memory s t r a t e g i e s under i n s t r u c t i o n . Pressley,  and  & J . R . Levin,  Instruction:  (Eds.),  Cognitive  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Foundations.  In M. Strategy New York:  Springer-Verlag.  Wessell,  M.G.  (1982).  Harper & Row.  C o g n i t i v e Psychology.  New York:  TABLE  k7  1.  S c h e m a t i c Diagram  o f D e s i g n and P r o c e d u r e  EXPERIMENTAL  Control (CONT)  CONDITIONS  Siaple Instruction (SI)  Elaborated Instruction JED  1. PPVT test  1. PPVT test  1. PPVT test  2. General instruction (Appendix F)  2. General instruction (Appendix 5)  2. 6eneral instruction (Appendix 6)  2a. Special instruction with PA ii UL (Appendix C It D)  3. PA It UL task (Appendix M B )  3a. Recall PA it UL  2a. Special instruction niU PA it UL (Appendix C It D)  - Making sentences out of PA list ft HO exaaples It two practice iteas)  - Making sentences out of Pa list itwo exaaples tt two practice iteasi  - Naaing category naaes out of UL list (two exasples Ic two practice iteas)  - Naaing category naaes out of Ul list (two exaaples It two practice iteas)  3. PA & UL task (Appendix A It B)  3. PA It UL task (Appendix i t i l  3a. Recall PA It UL  3a. Recall PA & UL 3b. Task-specific strategy instruction (Appendix H)  4. Transfer task (Appendix E)  4. Transfer task (Appendix E)  4. Transfer task (Appendix E)  5. Probing of strategies used (Appendix I)  5. Probing of strategies used (Appendix I)  5. Probing of strategies used (Appendix I)  48  Table 2 Mean Number o f P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e a n d W o r d - L i s t I t e m s C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d a t t h e L e a r n i n g and T r a n s f e r Phases by T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s and Two G r a d e s (N=108)  CONDITION  GRADE  ' LEARNING  PA  3  WL  TRANSFER  PA  WL  3  4.44  22.50  2.39  4.89  5  5.61  25.22  2.83  6.61  3  8.44  23.00  3.06  5.50  5 3  8.83 8.72  23.83 24.00  3.39 3.61  6.50 7.56  5  9.06  25.11  4.17  10.11  CONTROL  SIMPLE INSTRUCTION ELABORATED INSTRUCTION  Maximum s c o r e s f o r PA and WL a t t h e l e a r n i n g a n d t r a n s f e r p h a s e s a r e 10 a n d 30, a n d 5 a n d 15, respectively. MS (102)=3.728 a n d 10.568, r e s p e c t i v e l y , PA a n a WL a t t h e l e a r n i n g p h a s e . MS (102)=2.027 a n d 7.424, r e s p e c t i v e l y , PA an"8 WL a t t h e t r a n s f e r p h a s e . e  r  f o rthe f o rthe  49  Table 3 P r o p o r t i o n s o f S u b j e c t s f o r Four C a t e g o r i e s o f S t r a t e g i e s R e p o r t e d a s E m p l o y e d u n d e r t h e T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s (N=108) CONDITIONS  STRATEGY-CHOICE  CONTROL  SIMPLE INSTRUCTION  ELABORATED INSTRUCTION  PA  WL  PA  WL  PA  WL  APPROPRIATE  22.2  27.8  52.8  30.6  91.7  88.9  INAPPROPRIATE  63.9  55.6  27.8  33.3  5.6  OWN  8.3  5.6  11.1  27.8  5.5  INAPPROPRIATE + OWN  5.6  11.0  8.3  8.3  a.  8.3  EXAMPLES OF THE FOUR CATEGORIES: APPROPRIATE:  S e n t e n c e - G e n e r a t i o n s t r a t e g y f o r PA C a t e g o r y - N a m i n g s t r a t e g y f o r WL.  INAPPROPRIATE:  Rehearsal strategy  OWN:  Remember t h e f i r s t l e t t e r f o r b o t h PA and WL.  INAPPROPRIATE + OWN:  f o r b o t h PA a n d WL. o f each  R e h e a r s a l and remember t h e f i r s t l e t t e r o f e a c h word f o r b o t h PA and WL.  word  50  Table 4 P r o p o r t i o n o f S u b j e c t s Aware o f t h e B e n e f i t s i n U s i n g A p p r o p r i a t e S t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e T r a n s f e r Task as Reported U n d e r t h e T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s (N=108)  CONDITIONS  CONTROL PA  WL  SIMPLE INSTRUCTION PA  WL  ELABORATED INSTRUCTION PA  WL  AWARE  24.32  27.03  52.94  32.35  89.19  86.49  NOT AWARE  75.68  72.97  47.06  67.65  10.81  13.51  51  9.5-1  98.5a<n "o °  §  Legend « Control  7.57-i  6.5  o  Simple Instruction  o  Daborcrted Instruction  H  C  o  £  6H  5.554.5-» T"  —I  6  grade  F i g u r e 1.  Mean No. o f Items C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d o f P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e s a t t h e L e a r n i n g Phase by T h r e e C o n d i t i o n s and Grades (N=108)  52  25.5-r  21.5  3  A  5  grade  F i g u r e . 2.  Mean No. o f Items C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d o f W o r d - l i s t s a t t h e L e a r n i n g Phase by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Grades (N=108)  53  F i g u r e 3.  Mean No o f Items C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d o f P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e s a t t h e T r a n s f e r Phase by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Grades (N=108)  11-1  2  F i g u r e 4.  3  4 grade  5  Mean No. o f Items C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d o f W o r d - l i s t s a t t h e T r a n s f e r Phase by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Grades (N=108)  APPENDIX A  PAIRED-ASSOCIATE L I S T  (TASK  1)  String  -  Box  Clown  Banana  Spoon  -  Egg  Needle  Balloon  Dog  -  Gate  Swing  Bathtub  Stick  -  Rice  Doll  Book  Iron  -  Candy  Frog  Cage  56  APPENDIX B  CATEGORICAL WORD-LIST  (TASK 2)  Fruits  Apple,  Animals  Monkey, E l e p h a n t ,  Furniture  -  Pear,  Grape Lion  S o f a , T a b l e , Bed  Jobs  Teacher,  Lawyer,  Vegetables  Carrots,  Lettuce, Celery  Vehicles  Car,  Sports  Hockey, T e n n i s ,  Baseball  Instruments  Trumpet,  Guitar  Cities  M o n t r e a l , Vancouver,  Colors  -  Doctor  Bus, T r u c k  Green,  Piano,  Red, B l u e  Toronto  57  APPENDIX C  PAIRED-ASSOCIATE  ILLUSTRATION & PRACTICE  Marble  -  Thumb  Carrot  -  Barrel  Towel  -  Plate  Shovel  -  Popcorn  LIST  58  APPENDIX D  CATEGORICAL WORD-LIST  ILLUSTRATION  & PRACTICE  Flowers  -  Rose, T u l i p ,  Clothing  -  Shirt,  Body P a r t s  -  Arm, L e g , Head  Meat  -  Pork,  Lily  Dress,  Beef,  LIST  Pants  Lamb  APPENDIX E  TRANSFER TASK  Milk,  Cheese,  Ontario,  Alberta,  Telephone,  Radio,  Spoon, F o r k , Hot,  Yogurt British  Columbia  Television  Knife  C o l d , Warm  Cow  -  Tent  Hair  -  Pipe  Hand  -  Hat  Pork  -  Cake  Celery  -  Stairs  60  APPENDIX F CONTROL CONDITION  You a r e g o i n g t o p l a y a memory game. The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s game i s t o remember and r e c a l l a s many w o r d s a s you c a n . F o r t h e f i r s t t a s k , t h e words a r e p a i r e d t o g e t h e r and y o u s h o u l d remember them a s p a i r s . A t t h e end o f t h e l i s t , y o u w i l l be g i v e n t h e f i r s t word o f t h e p a i r and y o u h a v e t o r e c a l l t h e s e c o n d word. F o r example, h e r e a r e two p a i r s : Tractor Rope  -  Mask Eye  I want y o u t o l e a r n them ( s u b j e c t s a r e g i v e n 15 s e c o n d s to l e a r n each p a i r ) . Now, i f I g i v e y o u t h i s word, T r a c t o r - (Rope - ) , what was t h e o t h e r word o f t h e p a i r ? L e t ' s t r y a n o t h e r two p a i r s . same t h i n g a s y o u d i d b e f o r e . Marble Carrot  -  I want y o u t o do t h e Thumb Barrel  F o r t h e s e c o n d t a s k , y o u s h o u l d remember t h e words on t h e c a r d a s a g r o u p . A t t h e end o f t h e t a s k , you w i l l be g i v e n t h e c a t e g o r y name, and y o u t e l l me what a r e t h e w o r d s on t h e c a t e g o r y . F o r example, h e r e a r e two l i s t s of words: Flowers Clothing  -  Rose, T u l i p , L i l y S h i r t , Dress, Pants  I f I g i v e y o u t h e c a t e g o r y name F l o w e r s a r e t h e words i n t h e c a t e g o r y ? Now, practice, before.  ( C l o t h i n g ) , what  h e r e a r e two more l i s t s o f words f o r y o u t o I want y o u t o do t h e same t h i n g a s y o u d i d Body P a r t s Meat  -  Arm, L e g , Head P o r k , B e e f , Lamb  61  APPENDIX G SIMPLE  INSTRUCTION  CONDITION  You a r e g o i n g t o p l a y a memory game. The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s game i s t o remember and r e c a l l a s many w o r d s a s you c a n . F o r t h e f i r s t t a s k , t h e words a r e p a i r e d t o g e t h e r and y o u s h o u l d remember them a s p a i r s . A t t h e end o f t h e l i s t , y o u w i l l be g i v e n t h e f i r s t word on t h e p a i r and y o u t e l l me what i s t h e s e c o n d word o f t h e p a i r . One " t r i c k " y o u c a n u s e t o h e l p y o u remember w h i c h two w o r d s go t o g e t h e r i s t o make a s e n t e n c e t o c o n n e c t t h e words. F o r example, h e r e a r e two p a i r s : Tractor Rope The s e n t e n c e s  I will  -  Mask Eye  make f o r t h e s e  pairs are:  The TRACTOR r a n o v e r t h e MASK. The ROPE moved o v e r t h e EYE. When y o u a r e g i v e n t h e f i r s t word on t h e p a i r , T r a c t o r (Rope), y o u r e c a l l t h e s e n t e n c e and t h e s e n t e n c e h e l p s y o u t o remember t h e s e c o n d word on t h e p a i r . Now, h e r e a r e two more p a i r s o f words f o r y o u t o practice. I want y o u t o u s e t h e same " t r i c k " I j u s t t a u g h t y o u and u s e i t t o h e l p y o u t o l e a r n t h e s e w o r d s . Marble Carrot  -  Thumb Barrel  F o r t h e s e c o n d t a s k , y o u s h o u l d remember t h e words on t h e c a r d a s a g r o u p . A t t h e end o f t h e t a s k , you w i l l be g i v e n t h e c a t e g o r y name, and y o u t e l l me what a r e t h e w o r d s on t h a t c a t e g o r y . One " t r i c k " y o u c a n u s e t o h e l p y o u remember t h e words on t h e c a r d i s t o c o n n e c t t h e c a t e g o r y name w i t h t h e words on t h e c a r d . F o r example, h e r e a r e two l i s t s o f w o r d s : Flowers Clothing  -  Rose, T u l i p , L i l y S h i r t , Dress, Pants  62  What y o u c a n do i s t o s a y t h e s e w o r d s t o y o u r s e l f : "Here are t h r e e kinds o f Flowers - Rose, T u l i p , L i l y ; h e r e are t h r e e types o f C l o t h i n g - S h i r t , Dress, Pants". When y o u a r e g i v e n t h e c a t e g o r y name F l o w e r s ( C l o t h i n g ) , i t g i v e s y o u a c l u e o f t h e words t h a t b e l o n g t o t h e category. Now, h e r e a r e two more l i s t s o f w o r d s f o r y o u t o p r a c t i c e , I want y o u t o u s e t h e same " t r i c k " t h a t I j u s t t a u g h t y o u and u s e i t t o h e l p you t o l e a r n t h e words. Body P a r t s Meat  -  Arm, L e g , Head P o r k , B e e f , Lamb  63  APPENDIX H  ELABORATED INSTRUCTION CONDITION Not a l l memory " t r i c k s " are h e l p f u l f o r the same task. Some " t r i c k s " are b e t t e r or more h e l p f u l f o r one type of t a s k than i s the o t h e r . T h e r e f o r e , when you are g i v e n a t a s k t o l e a r n , you should f i r s t look a t what the t a s k i s and then s e l e c t the " t r i c k " t h a t would h e l p you the most. For example, the sentence " t r i c k " works w e l l when you have t o remember two words t h a t are p a i r e d t o g e t h e r , l i k e these p a i r s : Hammer  -  Bell  The HAMMER h i t the BELL.  Arm  -  Bread  The ARM p i c k e d up the BREAD.  On the other hand, when you are g i v e n a t a s k t o l e a r n t h a t i n v o l v e s w i t h a long l i s t of words such as this: Rock, B o t t l e ,  Wheel, F i s h  then the sentence " t r i c k " would not be o f a h e l p t o you because i t i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o connect so many words i n t o a sentence. For the category-naming " t r i c k " , i t works w e l l o n l y when the words a l l have one t h i n g i n common, t h a t i s , they f a l l under the same category such as t h i s l i s t : Appliances  -  Toaster, Refrigerator, Dishwasher, Oven  However, the category-naming " t r i c k " i s not u s e f u l when the words are not connected w i t h one another l i k e this l i s t : Vocabularies  -  Prevent, Brave, J o i n , Hazardous, Contagious  Since t h i s t a s k r e q u i r e s you t o d e f i n e these v o c a b u l a r i e s , g i v e a c a t e g o r y name t o t h e s e w o r d s w o u l d n o t be a b l e t o h e l p y o u t o d e f i n e t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s e words. T h e r e f o r e , when y o u a r e g i v e n a t a s k t o l e a r n , examine t h e t a s k f i r s t , d e t e r m i n e w h i c h " t r i c k " w o u l d b e most s u i t a b l e f o r t h a t s p e c i f i c t a s k a n d t h e n u s e t h a t " t r i c k " t o help you f o r b e t t e r r e c a l l .  65  APPENDIX  I  QUESTIONNAIRE ON STRATEGY USED DURING TRANSFER TASK  1.  What s t r a t e g y ( i e s ) task?  d i d you used f o r the  2.  Why d i d y o u s e l e c t you?  this/these  3.  How d i d t h e s t r a t e g y ( i e s ) words?  4.  P l e a s e g i v e an e x a m p l e o f t h e  transfer  strategy(ies)  h e l p you t o  learn  strategy(ies)  to  help  the  you used.  

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.831.1-0097229/manifest

Comment

Related Items