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 EFFECTIVE 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 i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AUGUST, 1987 @ YI LING MARY CHOW, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of 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 thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of f.ftT/rOAJ&L fcy&J/y/KV The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6(3/81) A b s t r a c t T h i s study examined the e f f e c t s of a n a l y z i n g t a s k demands on c h i l d r e n ' s s e l e c t i o n and spontaneous 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 . Two l e a r n i n g t a s k s and a t r a n s f e r t a s k were used. One hundred and e i g h t c h i l d r e n i n grades 3 and 5 were randomly a s s i g n e d t o one of the t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s , C o n t r o l , Simple I n s t r u c t i o n ( S I ) , and E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n ( E I ) . No s t r a t e g y was taught t o s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . S u b j e c t s i n the SI and EI c o n d i t i o n s were i n s t r u c t e d t o use a p p r o p r i a t e memory s t r a t e g i e s f o r the l e a r n i n g t a s k . In a d d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s i n the EI c o n d i t i o n a l s o r e c e i v e d t a s k - s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s i n f o r m a t i o n p r i o r t o the t r a n s f e r t a s k . T h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n o f the memory s t r a t e g i e s t o the t r a n s f e r t a s k was examined. R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the main e f f e c t of grade was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the c a t e g o r i c a l w o r d - l i s t t a s k but not f o r the p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e t a s k a t both l e a r n i n g and t r a n s f e r phases. In g e n e r a l , s u b j e c t s i n the two experimental c o n d i t i o n s (SI and EI) performed b e t t e r than the s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , and t h a t the EI s u b j e c t s out performed the SI s u b j e c t s . T r a n s f e r of the s t r a t e g i e s o c c u r r e d mainly i n the EI c o n d i t i o n which i n c l u d e d the t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . In ot h e r words, the more t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d c o n c e r n i n g the memory s t r a t e g i e s , the more l i k e l y they would 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 t o new l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I. RESEARCH PROBLEM 1. Statement of the Problem 1. T h e o r e t i c a l Background.' 3 . R a t i o n a l e and T h e o r e t i c a l Hypotheses...9. I I . METHOD 15. Sub j e c t s and Design 15. Lea r n i n g and T r a n s f e r Tasks 17. 1. P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e 17 . 2. C a t e g o r i c a l Word-List 17. 3. T r a n s f e r Task 18. Procedure 19. I I I . RESULTS 23. A n a l y s i s of Le a r n i n g Performance 24. 1. P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e 24. 2. C a t e g o r i c a l Word-List 25. A n a l y s i s of T r a n s f e r Performance 26. 1. P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e 26. 2. C a t e g o r i c a l W o r d - l i s t 27. 3. S t r a t e g y - C h o i c e Data 29. IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 31. REFERENCES 3 8. V LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Page Schematic Diagram of Design and Procedure...47. TABLE 2. Mean No. of 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 the L e a r n i n g and T r a n s f e r Phases by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Two Grades (N=108) 48, TABLE 3. P r o p o r t i o n of S u b j e c t s f o r Four C a t e g o r i e s of S t r a t e g i e s Reported as Employed Under the Three 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 of S u b j e c t s Aware of the B e n e f i t s i n Using A p p r o p r i a t e S t r a t e g i e s f o r the T r a n s f e r Task as Reported Under the Three C o n d i t i o n s (N=108) 50, v i LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1. Mean No. of P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e Items Correctly-R e c a l l e d a t the Lea r n i n g Phase by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Two Grades (N=108) 51. FIGURE 2. Mean No. of Word-List Items C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d at the Lea r n i n g Phase by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Two Grades (N=108) 52. FIGURE 3. Mean No. of P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e Items C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d a t the T r a n s f e r Phase by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Two Grades (N=108) 53. FIGURE 4. Mean No. of Word-List Items C o r r e c t l y R e c a l l e d at the T r a n s f e r Phase by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Two Grades (N=108) 54. v i i LIST OF APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A. P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e L i s t (Task 1) 55. APPENDIX B. C a t e g o r i c a l Word-List (Task 2) 56. APPENDIX C. P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e I l l u s t r a t i o n & P r a c t i c e L i s t 57. APPENDIX D. C a t e g o r i c a l Word-List I l l u s t r a t i o n & P r a c t i c e L i s t 58. APPENDIX E. T r a n s f e r Task 59. APPENDIX F. C o n t r o l C o n d i t i o n 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. E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n C o n d i t i o n 63. APPENDIX I. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e on S t r a t e g y Used During T r a n s f e r Task 65. ACKNOWLE DGEMENT In the e x e c u t i o n of t h i s study and the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s , I was a s s i s t e d by many people. I thank a l l those who c o n t r i b u t e d f o r t h e i r support and encouragement. I would l i k e t o express my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o my a d v i s o r , Dr. Seong-Soo Lee, f o r h i s guidance, a d v i c e , and support d u r i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h . I a l s o thank members of my committee, Dr. J u l i e Conry, and Dr. R i t a Watson, f o r t h e i r v a l u a b l e suggestions and comments. I g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge the s c h o o l board o f f i c i a l s and Mr. C u t c l i f f e and Mr. Larsen, p r i n c i p a l s , f o r t h e i r support of the study. I a l s o wish t o express my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l of the s u b j e c t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study. In a d d i t i o n , I thank my husband, R i c h a r d , f o r h i s c o n t i n u a l support, encouragement, and understanding throughout t h i s study. 1 Chapter I RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM E a r l y work i n memory development i n d i c a t e s t h a t young 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 spontaneously t o a i d t h e i r performance on l e a r n i n g t a s k s ( K a i l & Hagen, 1977; Rohwer, 1973; S a l a t a s & F l a v e l l , 1976). Re c e n t l y , r e s e a r c h e r s have employed d i f f e r e n t t r a i n i n g programs i n order t o enhance c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge and t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e use of memory s t r a t e g i e s (Lodico, Ghatala, L e v i n , P r e s s l e y , & B e l l , 1983; O ' S u l l i v a n & P r e s s l e y , 1984; Ghatala, L e v i n , P r e s s l e y , & L o d i c o , 1985; Waters & Andreassen, 1983). R e s u l t s from these experiments show t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o t e a c h young c h i l d r e n t o use a p p r o p r i a t e memory s t r a t e g i e s t o enhance t h e i r performance on s p e c i f i c t a s k s . However, wh i l e p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g i e s are a p p r o p r i a t e and h e l p f u l f o r p a r t i c u l a r t a s k s , i t was a l s o found t h a t c h i l d r e n o f t e n do not t r a n s f e r t h e i r knowledge of s t r a t e g i e s t o novel l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s (Belmont, B u t t e r f i e l d , & F e r r e t t i , 1982; Waters, 1982). Although t h e r e are cases i n which some t r a n s f e r d i d take p l a c e , the occurrences are o f t e n r e s u l t e d from experimenters' e x p l i c i t prompts ( P r e s s l e y & Dennis-Rounds, 1980). Researchers are thus c o n f r o n t e d 2 w i t h the d i f f i c u l t t a s k of how t o te a c h c h i l d r e n a v a r i e t y o f e f f i c i e n t memory s t r a t e g i e s , so t h a t they w i l l t r a n s f e r them spontaneously when they f a c e n o v e l l e a r n i n g t a s k s . C l o s e r examination o f the t r a i n i n g programs used by ot h e r s t u d i e s r e v e a l s t h a t the p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s seemed t o have n e g l e c t e d one aspect i n t h e i r t r a i n i n g , namely, memory s t r a t e g i e s being t a s k - s p e c i f i c r a t h e r than t a s k -g e n e r a l ( i . e . , s t r a t e g y A i s b e t t e r than s t r a t e g y B f o r some l e a r n i n g t a s k s w h i l e the o p p o s i t e i s t r u e f o r some ot h e r l e a r n i n g t a s k s ) . Consequently, one may not i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y apply the same memory s t r a t e g y t o a l l l e a r n i n g t a s k s . The p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e o f the p r e s e n t study was t o d e f i n e 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 s t r a t e g i e s . In t h i s study, the primary focus was on examining the n o t i o n t h a t spontaneous 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 depends i n p a r t on whether or not one has knowledge and a b i l i t y t o d i s t i n g u i s h s t r a t e g i e s t h a t are a p p r o p r i a t e from those i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the l e a r n i n g t a s k a t hand. In oth e r words, not a l l memory s t r a t e g i e s are e q u a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e and e f f e c t i v e f o r a l l l e a r n i n g t a s k s . I t was p o s t u l a t e d t h a t memory performance depends on the l e a r n e r ' s a b i l i t y t o s e l e c t an e f f e c t i v e memory s t r a t e g y a c c o r d i n g t o the l e a r n i n g t a s k 3 demand. S p e c i f i c a l l y , having the necessary knowledge t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t are a p p r o p r i a t e t o the t a s k a t hand would f a c i l i t a t e c h i l d r e n t o t r a n s f e r the a c q u i r e d s t r a t e g i e s t o novel l e a r n i n g t a s k s . THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Si n c e the landmark symposium of F l a v e l l (1971) "what i s memory development the development 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 awareness of the development of t h e i r own memory. As a r e s u l t , t h e r e i s now a l a r g e body of l i t e r a t u r e on c h i l d r e n ' s awareness of t h e i r own c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y on metamemory. The phenomenon of metamemory was d e f i n e d by F l a v e l l (1971) as one's awareness of h i s / h e r own memory s t a t e or any knowledge germane t o i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l . In ot h e r words, a person has metamemory i f s/he shows knowledge t h a t some t h i n g s are e a s i e r f o r him/her t o remember than o t h e r s , and i s aware t h a t w h i l e one item i s on the verge of r e c a l l , another i s wh o l l y i r r e t r i e v a b l e ( F l a v e l l & Wellman, 1977). G e n e r a l l y , a person showing metamemory would be knowledgeable about h i s / h e r own memory s t a t e i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n , and would a l s o be aware of the a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s f o r s t o r i n g and r e t r i e v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from memory. 4 F i n d i n g s from v a r i o u s s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t o l d e r c h i l d r e n g e n e r a l l y show g r e a t e r metamemorial knowledge and awareness than younger c h i l d r e n ( B j o r k l u n d & de Marchena, 1984; Brown, 1978; F l a v e l l & Wellman, 1977; Moynahan, 1978; Rohwer, 1980). For example, v e r y young c h i l d r e n (e.g., k i n d e r g a r t n e r s ) know t h a t a memory t a s k i s h arder i f i t has a l a r g e number of items whereas onl y o l d e r c h i l d r e n (e.g., grade 5) know t h a t a r e c a l l t a s k i s harder i f one has t o l e a r n two s e t s words t h a t are e a s i l y confused (Kreutzer, Leonard, & F l a v e l l , 1975). Moreover, compared t o o l d e r c h i l d r e n , younger c h i l d r e n were found t o engage i n memorization n o n s t r a t e g i c a l l y , have poor understanding o f when some t h i n g s have been memorized, and r e c a l l p o o r l y (Appel, Cooper, M c C a r r e l l , Sims-Knight, Yussen, & F l a v e l l , 1972). Brown (1978) a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t k i n d e r g a r t n e r s , compared t o t h i r d - g r a d e r s , were l e s s aware of the f a c t t h a t words are e a s i e r t o remember i n a n a r r a t i v e form than i n a l i s t . Moreover, they were l e s s aware t h a t i t i s e a s i e r t o l e a r n l i s t s of h i g h a s s o c i a t e s than low a s s o c i a t e s , and t h a t i t i s e a s i e r t o paraphrase than t o r e c a l l v e rbatim. Given t h a t young c h i l d r e n are r e l a t i v e l y n a i v e about t h e i r own memory process as w e l l as how t a s k parameters may i n f l u e n c e memory, r e c e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on memory development mainly have focused on s t r a t e g y usage under 5 i n s t r u c t i o n ( P r e s s l e y , H e i s e l , McCormick, & Nakamur, 1982) . The r a t i o n a l e behind these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i s t h a t i f young c h i l d r e n are unaware of t h e i r own memory a b i l i t i e s , perhaps they can be taught t o l e a r n memory s t r a t e g i e s and implement them under a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d i t i o n s . R e s u l t s from v a r i o u s s t u d i e s show t h a t young c h i l d r e n can be r e a d i l y t r a i n e d t o use s t r a t e g i e s . However, experimenters o f t e n face a p e r p l e x i n g problem; young c h i l d r e n tend t o abandon the t r a i n e d s t r a t e g i e s u n l e s s they were e x p l i c i t l y prompted t o c o n t i n u e (Brown, 1978; P a r i s , Newman, & McVey, 1982; P r e s s l e y and Dennis-Rounds, 1980; P r e s s l e y , Ross, L e v i n , & G hatala, 1984c). One reason f o r the l i m i t e d d u r a b i l i t y and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of a c q u i r e d s t r a t e g i e s appears t o be the inadequacy of s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n d u r i n g t r a i n i n g t r i a l s ( 0 1 S u l l i v a n & P r e s s l e y , 1984). The s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n s u s u a l l y do not i n c l u d e more than a d e s c r i p t i o n of how t o execute the component processes of a s t r a t e g y . For example, r e h e a r s a l i s one of the most f r e q u e n t l y s t u d i e d s t r a t e g i e s f o r simple l i s t l e a r n i n g . The procedures used by Naus, O r n s t e i n , and Aivano (1977) were t y p i c a l of those used i n r e s e a r c h on r e h e a r s a l . C h i l d r e n i n s t r u c t e d t o rehearse were simply t o l d t o p r a c t i c e the p r e s e n t e d word aloud w i t h any two o t h e r words i n the l i s t . They were encouraged t o do t h i s d u r i n g the e n t i r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Notably l a c k i n g from the i n s t r u c t i o n s was 6 any i n f o r m a t i o n on why the r e h e a r s a l s t r a t e g y was l i n k e d t o the g o a l of memory, or how and i n what circumstances t h i s s t r a t e g y might be v a r i e d . No s t r a t e g y f o r p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g has r e c e i v e d as much a t t e n t i o n as e l a b o r a t i o n ( P r e s s l e y , 1982) . The d i r e c t i o n s used by P r e s s l e y & L e v i n (1977) i n t h e i r r e s e a r c h on c h i l d r e n ' s use of e l a b o r a t i o n were somewhat more s p e c i f i c than those p r o v i d e d by Naus e t a l . (1977). A l l s u b j e c t s i n the study by P r e s s l e y & L e v i n (1977) were t o l d t o remember which items p a i r e d t o g e t h e r . Some s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o generate mental images of the p a i r e d items i n t e r a c t i n g s i n c e these images would a i d l e a r n i n g . I t seems t h a t these i n s t r u c t i o n s i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g y knowledge about l e a r n i n g g a i n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t r a t e g y use. However, they were s t i l l t o o vague and i n v o l v e d too l i t t l e s p e c i f i c or d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n about the s t r a t e g y . As they became more aware of i n s t r u c t i o n inadequacy, r e s e a r c h e r s began t o p r o v i d e more s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n s d u r i n g the t r a i n i n g t r i a l s . I t has been suggested by many r e s e a r c h e r s (Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981; L o d i c o e t a l . , 1983; P a i r s , e t a l . , 1982; R i n g e l & S p r i n g e r , 1980) t h a t i n order f o r c h i l d r e n t o t r a n s f e r s t r a t e g i e s on t h e i r own, they must possess knowledge on the r e s p e c t i v e v a l u e s of the s t r a t e g i e s i n improving t h e i r performance. Some s t u d i e s examined the e f f e c t of 7 experimenter-provided i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the v a l u e or e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the t r a i n e d s t r a t e g y . They showed t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , when c h i l d r e n are made aware of the v a l u e of a s t r a t e g y , they are more l i k e l y t o co n t i n u e t o use t h a t s t r a t e g y a f t e r t r a i n i n g (e.g., Cavanaugh & Borkowski, 1979; Kramer & Engle, 1981). For i n s t a n c e , L o d i c o e t a l . (1983) t r a i n e d 7 t o 8 year o l d c h i l d r e n about g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s of s t r a t e g y m o n i t o r i n g b e f o r e exposing them t o d i f f e r e n t 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 ta s k . T h e i r study suggests t h a t engaging c h i l d r e n i n m o n i t o r i n g and e v a l u a t i n g a range of s t r a t e g i e s r e s u l t s i n s e l e c t i n g more a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s i n v a r i o u s t a s k s . Moreover, P r e s s l e y , Borkowski, and 0 ' S u l l i v a n (1984a) proposed t h a t s t r a t e g y usage i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o knowledge about the s t r a t e g y , and they suggested t h a t e x p l i c i t metamemorial i n f o r m a t i o n on a s t r a t e g y makes t h a t s t r a t e g y more e f f e c t i v e when needed. In o t h e r words, 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 i s the l e a r n e r ' s comprehensive knowledge of the s t r a t e g y when a memory s t r a t e g y i s taught. P r e s s l e y e t a l . (1984a) r e f e r r e d t o t h i s type o f knowledge as s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g y knowledge which i n c l u d e s types of t a s k m a t e r i a l s , one's own knowledge and s k i l l i n u s i n g the s t r a t e g y , i n f o r m a t i o n about i t s u t i l i t y , as w e l l as the knowledge about when, why, and how t o use v a r i o u s s t r a t e g i e s 8 a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , c h i l d r e n need t o possess a ge n e r a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t would guide them i n how and when t o apply the s t r a t e g i e s a p p r o p r i a t e l y . 0 ' S u l l i v a n & P r e s s l e y (1984) had i n c o r p o r a t e d some of the above components i n t h e i r study. C h i l d r e n i n grades 5 and 6 and a d u l t s were presented two memory t a s k s w i t h an a s s o c i a t i v e component. F i r s t , they l e a r n e d p a i r i n g s between names of c i t i e s and t h e i r p r o d u c t s ; then they a c q u i r e d d e f i n i t i o n s of L a t i n v o c a b u l a r y words. C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s l e a r n e d both s e t s of m a t e r i a l s w i t h no s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n s . S u b j e c t s i n the experimental c o n d i t i o n s l e a r n e d the c i t y - p r o d u c t p a i r s u s i n g the keyword method which i s e f f e c t i v e w i t h such l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s ( P r e s s l e y & Dennis-Rounds, 1980). These experimental c o n d i t i o n s v a r i e d with r e s p e c t t o how e x p l i c i t l y s u b j e c t s were t o l d how and when the keyword mnemonics are h e l p f u l . In one of the experimental c o n d i t i o n s , s u b j e c t s were presented w i t h o n l y the "how" i n f o r m a t i o n about the memory s t r a t e g y and the "where" and "when" i n f o r m a t i o n was not presented. T h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n of the memory s t r a t e g y t o the L a t i n t a s k was examined. The most important dependent v a r i a b l e i n t h e i r study i s whether s u b j e c t s had t r a n s f e r r e d the keyword s t r a t e g y t o the L a t i n v o c a b u l a r y ta s k . In g e n e r a l , c h i l d r e n ' s t r a n s f e r was found t o be g r e a t e r when the keyword 9 i n s t r u c t i o n e x p l i c i t l y c o n t a i n e d a l o t of i n f o r m a t i o n about how and when t o use the s t r a t e g y . On the oth e r hand, a d u l t s ' t r a n s f e r was h i g h r e g a r d l e s s of the e x p l i c i t n e s s o f s t r a t e g y i n f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d e d i n the i n s t r u c t i o n s . A d u l t s probably a b s t r a c t more knowledge about a. s t r a t e g y from simple i n s t r u c t i o n s and p r a c t i c e than c h i l d r e n do (Chi, 1976; P r e s s l e y , L e v i n , Ghatala, 1984b), thus, making the e x p l i c i t p r o v i s i o n o f s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g y i n f o r m a t i o n much more c r u c i a l w i t h c h i l d r e n . Although the study by 0 * S u l l i v a n & P r e s s l e y (1984) al l o w s f o r s t r o n g e r c a u s e - a n d - e f f e c t c o n c l u s i o n s than p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , i t has not p r o v i d e d c l e a r d i r e c t i o n s on the c r i t i c a l a s pects o f s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g y knowledge, nor has i t p r o v i d e d u s e f u l i n s i g h t s i n t o o p t i m a l ways of i n d u c i n g metamemory s t r a t e g y . However, i t d i d p r o v i d e some p r e l i m i n a r y evidence t h a t i n c r e a s i n g p r o v i s i o n o f 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 i n s t r u c t i o n makes an important d i f f e r e n c e i n c h i l d r e n ' s g e n e r a l i z e d s t r a t e g y usage. T h i s p o i n t e d t o the 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 , the main o b j e c t i v e i n c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y r e s e a r c h i s t o i d e n t i f y methods and techni q u e s t o produce "good s t r a t e g y u s e r s " ( P r e s s l e y , Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987). In r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e r e 10 has been an i n c r e a s i n g emphasis upon f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the continued use and t r a n s f e r o f s t r a t e g i e s f o l l o w i n g s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n . I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t s u b j e c t s ' metamemorial i n f o r m a t i o n p l a y s a c r i t i c a l r o l e i n t h e i r subsequent s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n s and use (Borkowski, 1985; P r e s s l e y e t a l . , 1984a). A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , the o f t e n documented f a i l u r e on the p a r t of young c h i l d r e n t o ma i n t a i n and g e n e r a l i z e newly a c q u i r e d 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 d e f i c i e n t knowledge about the i n s t r u c t e d s t r a t e g y ( K e n d a l l , Borkowski, & Cavanaugh, 1980; Kramer & Engle, 1981). C l o s e r examination r e v e a l e d t h a t most r e s e a r c h methodologies i n v o l v e the t r a i n i n g of a s i n g l e s t r a t e g y which i s presumed t o be e f f e c t i v e . However, a c c o r d i n g t o Kr e u t z e r , Leonard, & F l a v e l l (1975), choosing an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y t o enhance one's memory performance depends p a r t l y on having v a r i o u s s t r a t e g i e s t o choose from. Young c h i l d r e n o f t e n have fewer mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s a t t h e i r d i s p o s a l than a d u l t s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n knowledge and a v a i l a b i l i t y of s t r a t e g i e s may be one of the major f a c t o r s u n d e r l y i n g the d i f f e r e n t performance between c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s on memory l e a r n i n g t a s k s . The m a j o r i t y of 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 i n v o l v e d an immediate t r a n s f e r o f a 11 newly a c q u i r e d s t r a t e g y , and t h e i r focus u s u a l l y was o n l y on a s i n g l e s t r a t e g y . P r e s s l e y e t a l . (1984a) suggested t h a t one way t o f a c i l i t a t e the long-term maintenance of e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i s t o teach c h i l d r e n a g e n e r a l , n o n s p e c i f i c p r i n c i p l e t h a t i s r e l e v a n t t o a l l memory s t r a t e g i e s . The p r e s e n t study examined one such g e n e r a l p r i n c i p a l t h a t i s c r u c i a l t o the use and t r a n s f e r of s t r a t e g i e s f o l l o w i n g s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n . I t i n v o l v e d t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n t o focus on the t a s k demand. Such knowledge i s important f o r the deployment of s t r a t e g i e s . For example, t o remember the g i s t of a long prose passage i s a much l e s s demanding r e t r i e v a l t a s k than t o r e c a l l i t verbatim. T h e r e f o r e , one needs t o r e c o g n i z e the t a s k demand a t hand and s e l e c t the most a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y a c c o r d i n g l y r a t h e r than apply the same s t r a t e g y i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y t o a l l t a s k s . Consequently, the use of d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s based on the t a s k demand a t hand would a i d one's performance. A c c o r d i n g t o W e s s e l l (1982), the a b i l i t y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t are a p p r o p r i a t e from those i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o the t a s k a t hand may be a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r a d opting and m a i n t a i n i n g an e f f e c t i v e mnemonic s t r a t e g y . Choosing an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y f o r improving one's l e a r n i n g depends on what the nature of the t a s k c a l l s f o r . For i n s t a n c e , i f the t a s k c a l l s f o r remembering a long l i s t of new v o c a b u l a r y items, a 12 s t r a t e g y i n v o l v i n g r o t e memory or r e h e a r s a l may not be the most e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y one c o u l d use. Rather, some form o f e l a b o r a t i o n ( v e r b a l or imagery) would be more a p p r o p r i a t e . On the other hand, r e h e a r s a l would be u s e f u l f o r remembering a telephone number f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d of time. S i n c e the type and nature o f the t a s k v a r y g r e a t l y from one t o another, t r a i n i n g c h i l d r e n t o focus on the t a s k demand would enable them t o have the knowledge t o determine when and under what circumstances t o apply a s t r a t e g y e f f e c t i v e l y . There has been l i t t l e r e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n t o analyze the t a s k b e f o r e a p p l y i n g such a s t r a t e g y . The primary o b j e c t i v e o f the prese n t study was thus t o de s i g n a new t r a i n i n g program t o teach primary grade c h i l d r e n about the s p e c i f i c - t a s k i n f o r m a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t memory s t r a t e g i e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , two experimental c o n d i t i o n s , Simple I n s t r u c t i o n (SI) and E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n (EI) were employed. For the SI c o n d i t i o n , a g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e of HOW t o use the memory s t r a t e g i e s was taught t o the s u b j e c t s without any s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on the WHY and WHEN components. On the ot h e r hand, s u b j e c t s i n the EI c o n d i t i o n r e c e i v e d t a s k - s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h emphasis p l a c e d on the WHY and the WHEN components. Ins t e a d o f merely f o c u s i n g on t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n the s t r a t e g i e s as most r e s e a r c h e r s have done, the main focus o f t r a i n i n g i n the EI c o n d i t i o n was on the a n a l y s i s of 13 t a s k m a t e r i a l s . During the t r a i n i n g t r i a l , c h i l d r e n were t o l d t h a t the t r a i n e d s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d h e l p them on a v a r i e t y of s i m i l a r t a s k s and t h a t the t r i c k was t o know which ones. The i n s t r u c t i o n was focused on why c e r t a i n s t r a t e g i e s were more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r c e r t a i n t a s k s than o t h e r s . C h i l d r e n were then be exposed t o a v a r i e t y of p r o t o t y p i c t a s k s and the u t i l i t y o f the s t r a t e g y i n such s i t u a t i o n s demonstrated. At the same time, examples of and reasons why the t r a i n e d s t r a t e g i e s were i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r some t a s k s were a l s o d i s c u s s e d and demonstrated. C h i l d r e n were g i v e n o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o p r a c t i c e a f t e r the i n s t r u c t i o n s . F i n a l l y , they were presented w i t h a t r a n s f e r t e s t c o n t a i n i n g new p r o t o t y p i c t a s k s and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n o f the s t r a t e g i e s examined. The p r i n c i p a l g o a l of the p r e s e n t experiment was t o examine the e f f e c t of a n a l y z i n g the t a s k a t hand on spontaneous t r a n s f e r of e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . I t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t not a l l s t r a t e g i e s are e q u a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e 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 are more e f f e c t i v e f o r c e r t a i n types of t a s k s than o t h e r s (McDaniel & Kerarney, 1984). Hence, i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t having the knowledge and a b i l i t y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t are a p p r o p r i a t e from those t h a t are i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o the t a s k a t hand would f a c i l i t a t e c h i l d r e n i n t r a n s f e r i n g the newly a c q u i r e d s t r a t e g y t o new l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s . 14 Once na i v e s u b j e c t s are induced t o a c q u i r e simple memory s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . , Simple I n s t r u c t i o n ) o r e l a b o r a t e d memory s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . , E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n ) through the a p p r o p r i a t e t r a i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s , such s t r a t e g i e s i n f o r m a t i o n should be e f f e c t i v e when performing on a t r a n s f e r t a s k . In p a r t i c u l a r , the e l a b o r a t e d v e r s i o n of such s t r a t e g i e s should be more e f f e c t i v e i n g r e a t e r t r a n s f e r than the, simple ones. Of course, both experimental c o n d i t i o n s should be more e f f e c t i v e as compared t o the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . 15 Chapter I I METHOD SUBJECTS AND DESIGN A number of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have proposed i n t h e i r s t u d i e s t h a t t h e r e i s a s h i f t i n development w i t h r e s p e c t t o c h i l d r e n ' s use of memory s t r a t e g i e s ( B j o r k l u n d , 1985; B j o r k l u n d & de Marchena, 1984). In p a r t i c u l a r , younger c h i l d r e n (e.g., grade 1) tend t o be more n a i v e i n t h e i r use o f s t r a t e g i e s as compared wi t h o l d c h i l d r e n (e.g., grade 7). Beginning a t around grade 3, however, c h i l d r e n tend t o become more conscious of the s t r a t e g i e s t h a t are a v a i l a b l e t o them (Lang, 1973; B j o r k l u n d & de Marchena, 1984) . In the p r e s e n t study, grade 3 and 5 c h i l d r e n were s e l e c t e d i n o r d e r t o examine whether the same developmental t r e n d would occur as i n the p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s . A t o t a l of 108 grade 3 and 5 students were s e l e c t e d from two elementary s c h o o l s i n Burnaby and Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. As i t was c o n s i d e r e d t h a t memory a b i l i t y might be confounded by language a b i l i t y , the s u b j e c t p o o l was s e l e c t e d t o i n c l u d e o n l y those students whose n a t i v e language i s E n g l i s h . A l l s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study were a d m i n i s t e r e d the Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary T e s t - R e v i s e d (PPVT-R), Form L (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) as a 16 s c r e e n i n g measure f o r language. T h i s was t o c o n t r o l f o r the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t of v e r b a l a b i l i t y on l e a r n i n g the v e r b a l m a t e r i a l s i n the study. S u b j e c t s were rank ordered by t h e i r s c o r e on the PPVT-R and bl o c k e d i n t o 18 t r i a d s (54 s u b j e c t s f o r each grade); one of each t r i a d was randomly a s s i g n e d t o one of the t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s of the study, C o n t r o l , Simple I n s t r u c t i o n ( S I ) , and E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n ( E I ) . There were 17 boys and 19 g i r l s f o r the C o n t r o l and SI c o n d i t i o n s , and 19 boys and 17 g i r l s i n the EI c o n d i t i o n . The mean age f o r the grade 3 students was 8.10 years (range=7.6 t o 10.0 y e a r s ) , and the mean age f o r grade 5 students was 10.10 ye a r s (range=10.6 t o 12.2 y e a r s ) . For a l l c o n d i t i o n s , s u b j e c t s were g i v e n two s e t s o f l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s ( p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and w o r d - l i s t ) , and a t r a n s f e r t a s k t o study. S u b j e c t s were randomly a s s i g n e d t o one of the t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s , C o n t r o l , Simple I n s t r u c t i o n , and E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n . No s t r a t e g i e s were taught t o s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . S u b j e c t s i n the Simple I n s t r u c t i o n and E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n were i n s t r u c t e d t o use a p p r o p r i a t e memory s t r a t e g i e s f o r the l e a r n i n g t a s k s . In a d d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s i n the E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n r e c e i v e d t a s k -s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s i n f o r m a t i o n p r i o r t o the t r a n s f e r t a s k . T h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n o f the memory s t r a t e g i e s were examined f o r the t r a n s f e r t a s k 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 use was absent. Upon completion of the t r a n s f e r t e s t , s u b j e c t s were probed as t o the s t r a t e g i e s t h a t they had employed i n r e c a l l d u r i n g the t r a n s f e r t e s t . The c o n t r a s t i n g f e a t u r e s of the t h r e e treatment c o n d i t i o n s are s p e c i f i e d i n T a b l e 1. I n s e r t Table 1 about here LEARNING AND TRANSFER TASKS 1. P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e (PA) The f i r s t l e a r n i n g t a s k was a 20-item p a i r e d -a s s o c i a t e l i s t i n which the s t i m u l u s and response members are c o n c r e t e nouns (see Appendix A) . In a d d i t i o n , two p r a c t i c e l i s t s were a l s o c o n s t r u c t e d (see Appendix C). These noun p a i r s were chosen from the study by Rohwer & Bean (1973) d e a l i n g w i t h grades 1 t o 11 c h i l d r e n . The median word frequency f o r the PA l i s t was 232.0 (range=28 t o 2316) ( C a r r o l l , Davies, & Richman, 1971). 2. C a t e g o r i c a l W o r d - l i s t (WL) The second l e a r n i n g t a s k was a 3 0-item s t r u c t u r e d w o r d - l i s t c o n t a i n i n g 3 words from each of 10 c a t e g o r i e s (see Appendix B). A l s o two p r a c t i c e l i s t s were 18 c o n s t r u c t e d (see Appendix D). The median word frequency f o r the WL s e t was 262.5 (range=3 t o 2625) ( C a r r o l l , e t a l . , 1971). 3. T r a n s f e r Task The t r a n s f e r t a s k c o n s i s t e d of both p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and w o r d - l i s t items which d i f f e r e n t from the l e a r n i n g t a s k s . There were 10-items from the PA l i s t w i t h the st i m u l u s and response i n each p a i r and 15-item s t r u c t u r e d w o r d - l i s t s c o n t a i n i n g 3 words from each of the 5 c a t e g o r i e s (see Appendix E ) . For a l l t a s k s , the words were p r e - r e c o r d e d on an audio tape as w e l l as p r i n t e d on 12.7 x 7.6 cm index cards w i t h two words per c a r d f o r the PA t a s k , and t h r e e words per c a r d f o r the WL t a s k . S u b j e c t s were presented w i t h one of t h r e e randomly s e l e c t e d sequences of cards f o r each t a s k . For each p r e s e n t a t i o n , the audio tape p l a y e d the a p p r o p r i a t e sequence of the cards t o which the s u b j e c t was randomly assig n e d t o and a t the same time, s/he was pre s e n t e d w i t h the p r i n t e d c a r d s . Each c a r d was d i s p l a y e d f o r 15-seconds f o r the PA t a s k and 20-seconds f o r the WL t a s k . The onset of every c a r d was s i g n a l e d by a b e l l so as t o a l e r t the s u b j e c t t o the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the next c a r d . 19 PROCEDURE The experiment was conducted i n a classroom w i t h a t a b l e and c h a i r s . Each s u b j e c t was t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . They were t o l d t h a t they were going t o p l a y a memory game. A l l s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the c o n d i t i o n t o which they were as s i g n e d . They read each c a r d aloud as i t was presented i n order t o ensure t h a t the words were understood c o r r e c t l y . For the p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e task, s u b j e c t s i n the two experimental groups were i n s t r u c t e d t o use the sentence s t r a t e g y t o h e l p them l e a r n the PA t a s k whereas no s t r a t e g y was i n s t r u c t e d t o the s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . They were t o l d t o remember which two words go t o g e t h e r as they would have t o supply the response words when g i v e n the st i m u l u s word. A sample l i s t o f two noun p a i r s were presented f i r s t t o i l l u s t r a t e the procedure, f o l l o w e d by another two p a i r s (see Appendix C). They were pre s e n t e d as p r a c t i c e t r i a l s t o ensure t h a t the s u b j e c t s had indeed understood the i n s t r u c t i o n s and the procedure t o f o l l o w . Any apparent misunderstanding of i n s t r u c t i o n s was c l a r i f i e d b e f o r e they proceeded t o the l e a r n i n g t r i a l s . For the r e c a l l t e s t , the s t i m u l u s words were pre s e n t e d one a t a time, and s u b j e c t s were g i v e n 3 0 seconds t o r e c a l l the corres p o n d i n g response word. The 20 r e c a l l t e s t was g i v e n immediately a f t e r each l e a r n i n g t r i a l . S i m i l a r l y , f o r the w o r d - l i s t task, s u b j e c t s i n the two experimental c o n d i t i o n s were i n s t r u c t e d t o group the words i n t o a category and use the category-name as a cue t o a s s i s t t h e i r l e a r n i n g o f the words and no s t r a t e g y was mentioned t o the s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . At the end of the task, they were g i v e n the category name, and s u b j e c t s had t o r e c a l l the t h r e e items i n t h a t category. Two word cards were used as a demonstration, f o l l o w e d by another two cards as p r a c t i c e t r i a l s (see Appendix D). A f t e r a l l p o t e n t i a l misunderstandings were c l a r i f i e d , s u b j e c t s were g i v e n the a c t u a l w o r d - l i s t t a s k t o l e a r n f o l l o w e d immediately by the r e c a l l t e s t . The ord e r o f the t a s k s ( i . e . , 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 counterbalanced. For c l a r i t y , the f o l l o w i n g procedure d e s c r i p t i o n s assumed t h a t the p a i r e d -a s s o c i a t e t a s k preceded the w o r d - l i s t t a s k . CONTROL CONDITION. A l i s t o f p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e items i n Task 1 (see Appendix A) were presented t o the s u b j e c t s and they were asked t o study and remember as many p a i r s as they c o u l d i n the r e c a l l t e s t . R e c a l l t e s t f o r the Task 1 was g i v e n . Then s u b j e c t s were pre s e n t e d w i t h the w o r d - l i s t i n Task 2 (see Appendix B), and f o l l o w e d by the r e c a l l t e s t (see Appendix F ) . 21 SIMPLE INSTRUCTION CONDITION. S u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t one way t o remember which p a i r o f words goes t o g e t h e r i s t o make a sentence t o connect the words. T h i s i n s t r u c t i o n was i l l u s t r a t e d by u s i n g the two sample car d s , and s u b j e c t s were g i v e n another two cards t o p r a c t i c e . A l i s t o f p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e items i n Task 1 (see Appendix A) were then presented t o them and s u b j e c t s were asked t o use the sentence g e n e r a t i o n s t r a t e g y t o remember these p a i r s . The r e c a l l t e s t was then g i v e n . F o l l o w i n g the r e c a l l t e s t , the w o r d - l i s t i n Task 2 (see Appendix B) was presented t o the s u b j e c t s . They were i n s t r u c t e d t o l e a r n the words on each c a r d as a group and use the category name t o h e l p them remember. The i n s t r u c t i o n s were i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h two sample cards and, s u b j e c t s were g i v e n another two cards t o p r a c t i c e . R e c a l l t e s t of the t e n w o r d - l i s t s was then a d m i n i s t e r e d (see Appendix G). ELABORATED INSTRUCTION CONDITION. S u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d t o t h i s c o n d i t i o n r e c e i v e d the same i n s t r u c t i o n s and f o l l o w e d the i d e n t i c a l procedure as those g i v e n t o the s u b j e c t s i n the Simple I n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n . However, a f t e r the second r e c a l l t e s t , they r e c e i v e d a d d i t i o n a l t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on memory s t r a t e g i e s , w i t h 2 2 emphasis p l a c e d on d e t a i l i n g the type o f t a s k t o which the s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d be employed (see Appendix H). F o l l o w i n g the second r e c a l l t e s t , s u b j e c t s i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s were t o l d t h a t they c o u l d p l a y the game one more time and t h a t they c o u l d p l a y the game however they want. I t was emphasized t h a t the go a l was t o remember as many items as p o s s i b l e u s i n g s t r a t e g i e s they t h i n k would be h e l p f u l t o the t a s k (see Appendix E ) . At the end of the experiment, a l l s u b j e c t s were i n t e r v i e w e d t o examine which s t r a t e g y they had used d u r i n g the t r a n s f e r t a s k and why they s e l e c t e d t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y (see Appendix I) • The dependent v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s study are the mean number of items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d and the use of a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s on the t r a n s f e r t a s k . I t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t the E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n would r e s u l t i n the b e s t r e c a l l and 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 , f o l l o w e d by the Simple I n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n . By comparison, the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n would r e s u l t i n l e a s t r e c a l l and l e s s e f f e c t i v e i n t r a n s f e r of the memory s t r a t e g i e s . 23 Chapter I I I RESULTS To assess the e f f e c t o f the experimental v a r i a b l e on both l e a r n i n g and t r a n s f e r performance, the mean number of items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d was used as the s o l e dependent v a r i a b 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 gender, the data were c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s g i r l s and boys i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s . S i n c e the two performance measures f o r the p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and the c a t e g o r i c a l w o r d - l i s t were not d i r e c t l y comparable, they were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y i n a 2 Grades (3 and 5) x 3 C o n d i t i o n s ( C o n t r o l , Simple I n s t r u c t i o n , and E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n ) f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n . The mean standard s c o r e of the PPVT-R f o r the grade 3 was 102 (range=72 t o 137, standard deviation=16.83), and f o r the grade 5 was 105 (range=75 t o 137, standard deviation=18.03). An i n i t i a l examination of the PPVT-R sc o r e s shows no s i g n i f i c a n t treatment and a p t i t u d e i n t e r a c t i o n (p>.05) wi t h any o t h e r f a c t o r . T h e r e f o r e , i t was d e c i d e d t o drop the PPVT-R t e s t s c o r e s from f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s i n order t o g a i n s t a t i s t i c a l power and parsimony f o r examining data. 24 ANALYSIS OF LEARNING PERFORMANCE 1. P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e ( P A ) The mean number of items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d f o r p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and w o r d - l i s t a t the l e a r n i n g and t r a n s f e r phases are shown i n Table 2. I n s e r t Table 2 about here I n s p e c t i o n of T a b l e 2 shows t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , s u b j e c t s i n the E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n (EI) and Simple I n s t r u c t i o n (SI) c o n d i t i o n s r e c a l l e d about the same mean number of c o r r e c t responses (8.72 v s . 8.44 f o r grade 3 and 9.06 v s . 8.83 f o r grade 5, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . S u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n had the l e a s t r e c a l l of c o r r e c t items (4.44 and 5.61 f o r grade 3 and 5, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e on the r e c a l l measure showed t h a t 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 was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(2, 102)=45.086, MSe=3.728, p<.01, as shown i n F i g u r e 1. N e i t h e r the main e f f e c t o f the grade nor t h a t of i t s i n t e r a c t i o n with the s t r a t e g y treatment was s i g n i f i c a n t , however. The s i g n i f i c a n t 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 was f u r t h e r t r a c e d t o the f a c t t h a t both t r a i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s 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 earn ing phase with PA l i s t s , as compared to the Control condi t ion (5.03 vs . 8.76), F(1,102)=89.87, p<.0001; and that the two strategy condit ions d id 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. Insert Figure 1 about here 2. Categor ica l Word-List (WL) Inspection of Table 2 reveals that the mean number of items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d increased as a funct ion of grade. In general , grade 5 subjects r e c a l l e d more items than grade 3 subjects . The developmental trend was a lso shown i n the subsequent ana lys i s which ind icated the main e f fec t of Grade [ F ( l , 102)=6.182, MSe=10.568, p<.05] was s i g n i f i c a n t . The main e f fec t of the strategy t r a i n i n g condit ions was not s i g n i f i c a n t , F(2,102)=1.122 p>.05, nor was i t s i n t e r a c t i o n with grades, F(1,102)<1.0, i n d i c a t i n g that the strategy t r a i n i n g d id not make any d i f ference on subjects* l earn ing of the w o r d - l i s t . As shown i n Figure 2, grade 5 subjects i n the Control condi t ion appeared to l earn as e f f e c t i v e l y as the EI subjects or s l i g h t l y bet ter than the SI subjects (25.22 vs . 25.11 and 23.83, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , while grade 3 subjects appeared to perform best under the EI condi t ion , a l i t t l e bet ter under the SI 26 c o n d i t i o n . However, t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n between grades and 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 n o n s i g n i f i c a n t , F(2,102)<1.0. I n s e r t F i g u r e 2 about here ANALYSIS OF TRANSFER PERFORMANCE 1. P a i r e d - A s s o c i a t e ( P A ) For the t r a n s f e r task, a l l s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o use any s t r a t e g y they thought would be a p p r o p r i a t e t o h e l p them l e a r n the words. Table 2 shows the means f o r each c o n d i t i o n and grades. The mean number of items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d by s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l , SI, and EI c o n d i t i o n were 2.61, 3.23, and 3.89 out of the p o s s i b l e s c o r e o f 5, r e s p e c t i v e l y . A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t the main e f f e c t o f 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 [F(2, 102)=7.253, MSe=2.027, p<.01] was s i g n i f i c a n t , as shown i n F i g u r e 3. The main e f f e c t of grade appeared t o be o n l y m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F(1,102)=2.631 p < . l l , and the i n t e r a c t i o n between grade and 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 , as i n the l e a r n i n g phase, F(2,102)<1.0. F u r t h e r a n a l y s e s of the s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t r e v e a l e d f i r s t t h a t the 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 , as compared t o 27 the Control condi t ion (3.56 vs . 2.61), F(1,102)=10.56, p<.002 and that the EI subjects r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the SI subjects (3.89 vs . 3.23), F(l ,102)=3.945, p<.05. Insert Figure 3 about here 2. Categor ica l Word- l i s t (WL) Transfer performance on the ca tegor i ca l w o r d - l i s t task show somewhat d i f f e r e n t features of the strategy t r a i n i n g as wel l as grades e f f ec t s , as can be seen i n Figure 4. The analys i s of variance performed on the r e c a l l measure showed that the main e f fec ts of Grades [ F ( l , 102)=11.256, p<.01] and the strategy t r a i n i n g Condit ions [F(2, 102)=14.221 MSe=7.424, p<.01) were s i g n i f i c a n t . The developmental trend (5.98 vs . 7.74 out of t o t a l poss ib le score of 15 for grade 3 and 5, respect ive ly) i s c l e a r l y shown, but i t does not i n t e r a c t with the e f fec t of the strategy t r a i n i n g cond i t i on . Further analyses of the e f fects of the three strategy condit ions (5.75 vs . 6.00 vs . 8.83) revealed that the two memory s trateg ies induced are more e f f ec t i ve for r e c a l l performance than to the Control condi t ion (5.75 vs . 7.42), F(l ,102)=8.98, p<.003, and that the EI subjects out performed the SI s u b j e c t s , (8.83 v s . 6.00), F(l,102)=19.463, p<.0001. An examination of F i g u r e 4 suggests t h a t the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the SI s t r a t e g y on the t r a n s f e r t a s k i s l i m i t e d . Two post-hoc c o n t r a s t s were made t o i n v e s t i g a t e i t . A simple c o n t r a s t between the mean of the SI c o n d i t i o n and t h a t of the C o n t r o l was not s i g n i f i c a n t , whereas a complex one between the EI and the SI and C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n combined was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( S c h e f f e ' s F(2,102) =3.94). T h i s means t h a t the SI s t r a t e g y as induced d i d not have a g r e a t e r e f f e c t than the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n under which s u b j e c t s presumably would use t h e i r own n o n i n s t r u c t e d s t r a t e g y spontaneously, w h i l e the EI s t r a t e g y presumably induced as intended d i d have g r e a t e f f e c t on the t r a n s f e r performance. In o t h e r words, the simple, g e n e r a l s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n was no d i f f e r e n t from s u b j e c t s ' spontaneous s t r a t e g y o f t h e i r own; but the e l a b o r a t e s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n was found t o be v e r y e f f e c t i v e where the t a s k demand i s the r e c a l l of c a t e g o r i c a l w o r d - l i s t . I n s e r t F i g u r e 4 about here 29 3. S t r a t e g y - C h o i c e Data T a b l e 3 l i s t s the f o u r c a t e g o r i e s of s t r a t e g i e s r e p o r t e d as employed under the t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s . I n s e r t T a b l e 3 about here I n s p e c t i o n of t h i s Table i n d i c a t e s t h a t s u b j e c t s i n the EI 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 a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s f o r the PA and WL t a s k s (91.7% and 88.9%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . About h a l f of the s u b j e c t s i n the SI c o n d i t i o n t r a n s f e r r e d the a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y i n the PA t a s k (52.8%) and l e s s than o n e - t h i r d (30.6%) of 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 the WL t a s k . The m a j o r i t y of the s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n d i d not employ the 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 PA and the WL t a s k s (63.9% and 55.6%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . When asked t o g i v e t h e i r reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g the s t r a t e g i e s f o r the t r a n s f e r task, the m a j o r i t y o f the s u b j e c t s i n the EI c o n d i t i o n acknowledged the b e n e f i t s of a p p r o p r i a t e 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 both 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 t a s k s (89.19% and 86.49%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . On the o t h e r hand, o n l y h a l f (52.94%) and l e s s than o n e - t h i r d (32.35%) of the s u b j e c t s i n the SI c o n d i t i o n r e a l i z e d the advantages o f t r a n s f e r r i n g the 3 0 a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s f o r the p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and word-l i s t t a s k s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Most of the s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n r e p o r t e d t h a t they d i d not r e a l i z e the b e n e f i t s o f employing a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s i n a s s i s t i n g t h e i r r e c a l l (75.68% and 72.97% f o r the PA and WL t a s k s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . I n s e r t Table 4 about here Chapter IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION A major g o a l of the p r e s e n t study was t o determine whether t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on memory s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g would f a c i l i t a t e the t r a n s f e r of the e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t o l e a r n i n g new m a t e r i a l s . R e s u l t s of the p r e s e n t study i n d i c a t e a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the amount of s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n one r e c e i v e s on the s t r a t e g i e s and the mean number of items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d . In g e n e r a l , s u b j e c t s ' use of s t r a t e g i e s on the t r a n s f e r t a s k was v e r y much a f u n c t i o n of the t a s k -s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o the t r a n s f e r t a s k . The f i n d i n g s support the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the more t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d c o n c e r n i n g the memory s t r a t e g i e s , the more l i k e l y they w i l l 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 t o new l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t t r a n s f e r of the s t r a t e g i e s o c c u r r e d mainly i n the E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n which i n c l u d e d the t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . I n i t i a l l y , i t was thought t h a t memory performance might be confounded by one's language a b i l i t y . Although the PPVT-R i s used t o measure r e c e p t i v e v o c a b u l a r y (Dunn & Dunn, 1981), i t was found not t o d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t 32 the metamemorial r e t r i e v a l s t r a t e g i e s of c h i l d r e n on the p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e and c a t e g o r i c a l w o r d - l i s t . Few d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the two experimental groups i n the l e a r n i n g t r i a l s . S u b j e c t s i n both experimental c o n d i t i o n s r e c a l l e d about the same mean numbers of items. In c o n t r a s t , s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n had the l e a s t r e c a l l o f c o r r e c t items. However, t h i s f i n d i n g was expected s i n c e both groups r e c e i v e d i d e n t i c a l i n s t r u c t i o n d u r i n g the l e a r n i n g t r i a l s and no s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n was g i v e n t o the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . The d i f f e r e n c e of r e c a l l i n g and t r a n s f e r r 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 appeared i n the t r a n s f e r t a s k , a f t e r the s u b j e c t s i n the E l a b o r a t e d I n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n r e c e i v e d the t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . C a r e f u l a n a l y s i s o f the r e s u l t s p r o v i d e evidence f o r the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on the 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 . O v e r a l l , the t r a n s f e r o f the a p p r o p r i a t e memory s t r a t e g i e s o c c u r r e d mainly i n the EI c o n d i t i o n and not much so i n the SI c o n d i t i o n (as shown i n Table 3). T h i s r e s u l t i s i n acc o r d w i t h O 1 S u l l i v a n and P r e s s l e y ' s (1984) f i n d i n g s . A c c o r d i n g t o these r e s e a r c h e r s , the more i n f o r m a t i o n s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d about the memory s t r a t e g i e s , the more l i k e l y they w i l l t r a n s f e r the i n f o r m a t i o n t o the new s i t u a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , r e s u l t s i n the pr e s e n t study i n d i c a t e t h a t the t a s k - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n d i d p r o v i d e a 33 g u i d i n g f u n c t i o n f o r s u b j e c t s ' a b i l i t y t o t r a n s f e r 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 t h e i r own. I t 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 s u b j e c t s i n the 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 e f f e c t i v e l y as the EI s u b j e c t s f o r the WL i n the l e a r n i n g t r i a l . I t seemed t o the experimenter t h a t these s u b j e c t s had spontaneously d i s c o v e r e d an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y i n a s s i s t i n g t h e i r l e a r n i n g o f the w o r d - l i s t . However, t h e i r 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 e f f e c t s on the t r a n s f e r t a s k . T h i s was e v i d e n t from t h e i r poor performance d u r i n g the t r a n s f e r t e s t , as shown i n T a b l e 2. I t i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t o n l y grade 5 s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n were assumed t o have spontaneously d i s c o v e r e d the e f f e c t i v e category-naming s t r a t e g y f o r the WL, and t h i s t r e n d was not found i n the grade 3 s u b j e c t s . T h i s developmental t r e n d i n s t r a t e g y use was a l s o noted by ot h e r r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g., B j o r k l u n d & de Marchena, 1984; Moynahan, 1978; Rohwer, 1980; Waters, 1982). I t appeared t h a t grade 5 s u b j e c t s were more aware of the nature of the t a s k than t h e i r younger pe e r s . Responses on the s t r a t e g y - c h o i c e data i n d i c a t e d t h a t m a j o r i t y o f 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 t o t r a n s f e r the a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s a c c o r d i n g t o the t a s k 34 demand. Only about h a l f and less than one - th ird subjects i n the SI and Control condi t ions , r e spec t ive ly , were able to to t rans fer the s trateg ies appropr ia te ly . When j u s t i f y i n g t h e i r choice of s t ra teg ie s , most subjects i n the EI condi t ion were able to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r reasons i n regard to enhancing t h e i r r e c a l l when applying the s t ra teg i e s , as shown i n Table 4. Most of the subjects i n the SI condi t ion who reported to have employed the su i tab le s trateg ies d id not acknowledge the benef i t s of u t i l i z i n g the e f f ec t ive s t ra teg i e s . The majori ty of subjects i n that condi t ion could not give any reason why they se lected the s trateg ies and some of them reasoned that those were the s trateg ies that the experimenter taught them to use for the l earn ing task. The data reported here corroborate other research 1 s f ind ing ( e . g . , Ghatala et a l . , 1985) that e x p l i c i t information and the conceptual izat ion of memory s tra teg ies are fundamental i n order to produce genera l i za t ion and durable use of the s t r a t e g i e s . In other words, subjects not only need to know which s tra teg ies to use under appropriate circumstances but a l so are required to have a c l e a r understanding of why the s tra teg ies are appropriate i n those s i t u a t i o n s . In the present study, subjects i n the EI condi t ion had that understanding and were able to a r t i c u l a t e the reasons r e a d i l y when asked. On the contrary , those subjects i n 35 the SI condi t ion apply the appropriate s tra teg ies but lack the understanding of why they d i d i t . Consequently, long term maintenance of the s tra teg ies would not be as apparent as subjects i n the EI cond i t ion . The concept of teaching students to analyze task demands before s e l ec t ing an e f f ec t i ve strategy to help one's l earn ing on a task i s s t i l l rather nove l ; more research along t h i s area i s recommended. However, a few points are noteworthy for future i n v e s t i g a t i o n . F i r s t , t h i s study employed two types of the most frequently used s tra teg ies for elementary students, sentence-generation and category-naming. In order to general ize the f indings and conclusions to a broader populat ion, a wide range of tasks , memory s t ra teg ie s , and age groups are recommended for future research. Secondly, t h i s study mainly focused on short term r e c a l l . The e f fec t on long term r e c a l l by i n s t r u c t i n g the subjects to analyze task demands before s e l e c t i n g an appropriate strategy i s not c l e a r . Given the r a t i o n a l e of t h i s general p r i n c i p a l , one would expect that i t w i l l a l so f a c i l i t a t e long term trans fer of e f f ec t i ve memory s t r a t e g i e s . However, no conclusive statement can be made without further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the two tasks employed i n the present study seem to involve two presumably d i f f e r e n t task processes, sentence s tructure process (PA) and 3 6 c a t e g o r i c a l p r o c e s s (WL). I t appears from the f i n d i n g s t h a t grade 5 s u b j e c t s i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n were a b l e t o s p o n t a n e o u s l y induce an e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g y f o r the WL and y e t u n a b l e t o do so f o r the PA t a s k d u r i n g t h e l e a r n i n g t r i a l . I t i s sugges ted t h a t perhaps c a t e g o r y s t r a t e g y i s congruent w i t h b a s i c c o g n i t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n and c o n s e q u e n t l y these s u b j e c t s were a b l e t o p e r f o r m more e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h t a s k s t h a t i n v o l v e the c a t e g o r i c a l p r o c e s s . However, s p e c i f i c reasons f o r t h i s unexpected performance cannot be de termined a t t h i s t i m e . F u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the e f f e c t s o f the two t a s k p r o c e s s e s on memory s t r a t e g i e s i s recommended. In summary, r e s u l t s i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y s u p p o r t the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t memory s t r a t e g i e s a r e not t a s k - g e n e r a l , r a t h e r they a r e t a s k - s p e c i f i c . Moreover , the more t a s k -s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e c o n c e r n i n g memory s t r a t e g i e s , the more l i k e l y they w i l l 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 t o new l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . These f i n d i n g s have p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e d u c a t i o n . In a c t u a l i t y , s t u d e n t s are o f t e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h more t h a n one t a s k t o l e a r n and i t would not be f e a s i b l e t o prompt s t u d e n t s what t o do i n e v e r y new s i t u a t i o n . On the o t h e r hand, i f s t u d e n t s have been t a u g h t the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e o f a n a l y z i n g the t a s k demands and match ing the t a s k w i t h a most a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n e n a b l e s them t o t h i n k f i r s t and t h e n a c t a c c o r d i n g l y . 3 7 S i n c e the p r i n c i p a l i s not l i m i t e d t o one s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n , students can t h e r e f o r e spontaneously t r a n s f e r i t t o a v a r i e t y of new l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . 38 REFERENCES Appel , L . F . , Cooper, R . C , M c C a r r e l l , N . , Sims-Knight, J . , Yussen, S . R . , & F l a v e l l , J . H . (1972). The development of d i s t i n c t i o n between processing and memorizing. C h i l d Development, 43., 1365-1381. Belmont, J . M . , B u t t e r f i e l d , E . C , & F e r r e t t i , R . P . (1982). To secure t rans fer of t r a i n i n g i n s t r u c t self-management s k i l l s . In D.K. Detterman & R . J . Sternberg (Eds . ) , How and How Much Can In te l l i gence  Be Increased? Norwood, N . J . : Ablex. Bjorklund, D . F . (1985). The r o l e of conceptual knowledge i n the development of organizat ion i n c h i l d r e n ' s memory. In. C . J . Brainerd & M.Pressley (Eds . ) , Basic processes i n memory development:  Progress i n Cognit ive Development. New York: Spr inger -Ver lag . 39 B j o r k l u n d , D.F., & de Marchena, M.R. (1984). Developmental s h i f t s i n the b a s i s of o r g a n i z a t i o n i n memory: The r o l e of a s s o c i a t i v e v e r s u s c a t e g o r i c a l r e l a t e d n e s s i n c h i l d r e n ' s f r e e r e c a l l . C h i l d  Development. 55, 952-962. Borkowski, J.G. (1985). Signs of i n t e l l i g e n c e : S t r a t e g y g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and m e t a c o g n i t i o n . In S.R. Yussen (Ed.), The Growth of R e f l e c t i o n i n C h i l d r e n . New York: Academic Press. Brown, A.L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how t o remember: A problem i n m e t a c o g n i t i o n . In R. G l a s e r (Ed.), Advances i n I n s t r u c t i o n a l Psychology. ( V o l . 1). H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Brown, A.L., Campione, J.C., & Day, J.D. (1981). L e a r n i n g t o l e a r n : On t r a i n i n g s t u d e n t s t o l e a r n from t e x t . E d u c a t i o n a l Researcher. 10, 14-21. C a r r o l l , J.B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). Word  Frequency Book. New York: American H e r i t a g e P u b l i s h i n g Co., Inc.. Cavanaugh, J . C , & Borkowski, J.G. (1979). The metamemory-memory con n e c t i o n : E f f e c t s of s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g and maintenance. J o u r n a l of General  Psychology. 101, 161-174. Ch i , M.T.H. (1976). Short-term memory l i m i t a t i o n s i n c h i l d r e n : C a p a c i t y or p r o c e s s i n g d e f i c i t s ? Memory  C o g n i t i o n , 4, 559-572. Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L.M. (1981). Peabody P i c t u r e  Vocabulary T e s t - R e v i s e d (Form LO. Minnesota: American Guidance S e r v i c e . F l a v e l l , J.H. (1971). F i r s t d i s c u s s a n t s comments: What i s memory development the development of? Human Development. 14, 172-178. F l a v e l l , J.H. & Wellman, H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. K a i l & J.W. Hagan (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 , N.J.: Erlbaum. Ghatala, E.S., L e v i n , J.R., P r e s s l e y , M., & Lodico, M.G. (1985). T r a i n i n g c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y - m o n i t o r i n g i n C h i l d r e n . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 22., 199-215. 41 K a i l , R.V. & Hagan, J.W. (1977). 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 , N.J.: Erlbaum. K e n d a l l , C.R., Borkowski, J.G., & Cavanaugh, J.C. (1980). Metamemory and the t r a n s f e r o f an i n t e r r o g a t i v e s t r a t e g y by EMR c h i l d r e n . I n t e l l i g e n c e . 4, 255-270. Kramer, J . J . & Engle, R.W. (1981). Teaching awareness of s t r a t e g i c b e h a v i o r i n combination w i t h s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g : E f f e c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s memory performance. J o u r n a l o f Experimental C h i l d 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. (1975). An i n t e r v i e w study o f c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about memory. Monographs f o r the S o c i e t y f o r Research i n  C h i l d Development. 40, S e r i a l No. 159. Lange G.W. (1973). The development of con c e p t u a l and r o t e r e c a l l s k i l l s among s c h o o l age c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f Experimental C h i l d Psychology. 15. 394-407. Lo d i c o , M.G., Ghatala, E., L e v i n , J.R., P r e s s l e y , M., & 42 B e l l , J.A. (1983) . The e f f e c t s o f strategy-t r a i n i n g on c h i l d r e n ' s s e l e c t i o n o f e f f e c t i v e memory s t r a t e g i e s . J o u r n a l o f Experimental C h i l d  Psychology. 35, 263-277. McDaniel, M.A. & Kerarney, E.M. (1984). Optimal l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s and t h e i r spontaneous use: The importance of t a s k - a p p r o p r i a t e p r o c e s s i n g . Memory  and C o g n i t i o n . 12, 361-373. Moynahan, E.D. (1978). Assessment and s e l e c t i o n o f p a i r e d - a s s o c i a t e s t r a t e g i e s : A developmental study. J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology. 26, 257-266. Naus, M.J., O r n s t e i n , P.A., & Aviano, S. (1977). Developmental changes i n memory: The e f f e c t s of p r o c e s s i n g item and r e h e a r s a l i n s t r u c t i o n . J o u r n a l  of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 23., 237-251. O ' S u l l i v a n , J . & P r e s s l e y , M. (1984). Completeness of i n s t r u c t i o n and s t r a t e g y t r a n s f e r . J o u r n a l o f  Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 38, 275-288. P a r i s , S.G., Newman, R.S., & McVey, K.A. (1982). L e a r n i n g the f u n c t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of mnemonic a c t i o n s : A m i c r o g e n e t i c study of s t r a t e g y a c q u i s i t i o n . . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d  Psychology, 34, 490-509. P r e s s l e y , M. (1982). E l a b o r a t i o n and memory development. C h i l d Development, 53, 296-309. P r e s s l e y , M. & Dennis-Rounds, J . (1980). T r a n s f e r of mnemonic keyword s t r a t e g y of two age l e v e l s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 72., 575-582. P r e s s l e y , M. & L e v i n , J.R. (1977). Developmental d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u b j e c t s ' a s s o c i a t i o n - l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s and performance: A s s e s s i n g a h y p o t h e s i s J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology. 24., 431-439. P r e s s l e y , M., Borkowski, J.G., & O ' S u l l i v a n , J.T. (1984a). Memory s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n i s made of t h i s : Metamemory and d u r a b l e s t r a t e g y use. E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g i s t . 19, 84-107. 44 P r e s s l e y , M., Borkowski, J.G., & Schneider, W. (1987). C o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s : Good s t r a t e g y u s e r s c o o r d i n a t e m e t a c o g n i t i o n and knowledge. In R. Va s t a (Ed.), Annals of C h i l d Development A Research Annal ( V o l . 4 ) . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. P r e s s l e y , M., H e i s e l , B.E., McCormick, C.G., & Nakamura, G.V. (1982). Memory s t r a t e g y i n s t r u c t i o n w i t h c h i l d r e n . In C.J. B r a i n e r d Se M. P r e s s l e y (Eds.), Progressing; C o g n i t i v e Development Research. V o l . 2.  V e r b a l Processes i n C h i l d r e n . New York: S p r i n g e r -V e r l a g . P r e s s l e y , M., L e v i n , J.R., & Ghatala, E.S. (1984b). Memory s t r a t e g y m o n i t o r i n g i n a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l Leaning and V e r b a l Behavior. 23, 270-288. P r e s s l e y , M., Ross, K.A., L e v i n , J.R., & Ghatala, E.S. (1984c). The r o l e o f s t r a t e g y u t i l i t y knowledge i n c h i l d r e n ' s s t r a t e g y d e c i s i o n making. J o u r n a l of  Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 38, 491-504. 45 R i n g e l , B.A. & S p r i n g e r , C.J. (1980). On knowing how w e l l one i s remembering: The p e r s i s t e n c e of strategy-use d u r i n g t r a n s f e r . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d  Psychology. 29. 322-333. Rohwer, W.D. J r . (1973). E l a b o r a t i o n and l e a r n i n g i n c h i l d h o o d and adolescence. In H.W. Reese (Ed.), Advances i n C h i l d Development and Behavior, ( V o l . 8.). New York: Academic P r e s s . Rohwer, W.D. J r . (1980). An e l a b o r a t i v e c o n c e p t i o n of l e a r n i n g d i f f e r e n c e . In R.E. Snow, P.A. F r e d e r i c o , & W.E., Montague (Eds.), A p t i t u d e . L e a r n i n g , and  I n s t r u c t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Rohwer, W.D., J r . & Bean, J.P. (1973). Sentence e f f e c t s and noun-pair l e a r n i n g : A development i n t e r a c t i o n d u r i n g adolescence. J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d  Psychology. 15, 521-533. S a l a t a s , H. & F l a v e l l , J.H. (1976). B e h a v i o r a l and meta-mnemonic i n d i c a t o r s of s t r a t e g i c b e h a v i o r s under remember i n s t r u c t i o n s i n f i r s t grade. C h i l d  Development. 47., 81-89. 46 Waters, H .S . (1982). Memory development i n adolescence: Relat ionship between metamemory, s trategy use, and performance. Journal of Experimental C h i l d  Psychology. 33., 183-195. Waters. H . S . , & Andreassen, C. (1983). C h i l d r e n ' s use of memory s trateg ies under i n s t r u c t i o n . In M. Press ley , & J . R . Lev in , (Eds . ) , Cognit ive Strategy  Ins t ruc t ion : Psychological Foundations. New York: Spr inger -Ver lag . Wesse l l , M.G. (1982). Cognit ive Psychology. New York: Harper & Row. T A B L E 1. k7 Schematic Diagram of Design and Procedure E X P E R I M E N T A L C O N D I T I O N S Control (CONT) 1. PPVT test Siaple Instruction (SI) 1. PPVT test Elaborated Instruction JED 1. PPVT test 2. General instruction (Appendix F) 2. General instruction (Appendix 5) 2a. Special instruction with PA ii UL (Appendix C It D) - Making sentences out of PA list ft HO exaaples It two practice iteas) - Naaing category naaes out of UL list (two exasples Ic two practice iteas) 2. 6eneral instruction (Appendix 6) 2a. Special instruction niU PA it UL (Appendix C It D) - Making sentences out of Pa list itwo exaaples tt two practice iteasi - Naaing category naaes out of Ul list (two exaaples It two practice iteas) 3. PA It UL task (Appendix M B ) 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 It UL 4. Transfer task (Appendix E) 4. Transfer task (Appendix E) 3a. Recall PA & UL 3b. Task-specific strategy instruction (Appendix H) 4. Transfer task (Appendix E) 5. Probing of strategies used 5. Probing of strategies used (Appendix I) (Appendix I) 5. Probing of strategies used (Appendix I) 48 Ta b l e 2 Mean Number of 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 the L e a r n i n g and T r a n s f e r Phases by Three C o n d i t i o n s and Two Grades (N=108) CONDITION GRADE ' LEARNING TRANSFER PA 3 WL PA WL 3 4.44 22.50 2.39 4.89 CONTROL 5 5.61 25.22 2.83 6.61 3 8.44 23.00 3.06 5.50 SIMPLE INSTRUCTION 5 8.83 23.83 3.39 6.50 3 8.72 24.00 3.61 7.56 ELABORATED INSTRUCTION 5 9.06 25.11 4.17 10.11 Maximum s c o r e s f o r PA and WL a t the l e a r n i n g and t r a n s f e r phases are 10 and 30, and 5 and 15, r e s p e c t i v e l y . MS (102)=3.728 and 10.568, r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r the PA ana WL a t the l e a r n i n g phase. MS (102)=2.027 and 7.424, r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r the PA ean"8 rWL a t the t r a n s f e r phase. 49 T a b l e 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 of S t r a t e g i e s Reported as Employed under the Three C o n d i t i o n s (N=108) CONDITIONS STRATEGY-CHOICE CONTROL PA WL SIMPLE ELABORATED INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTION 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 8 . 3 a. EXAMPLES OF THE FOUR CATEGORIES: APPROPRIATE: Sentence-Generation s t r a t e g y f o r PA Category-Naming s t r a t e g y f o r WL. INAPPROPRIATE: Rehearsal s t r a t e g y f o r both PA and WL. OWN: Remember the f i r s t l e t t e r o f each word f o r both PA and WL. INAPPROPRIATE + OWN: Rehearsal and remember the f i r s t l e t t e r o f each word f o r both PA and WL. 50 Ta b l e 4 P r o p o r t i o n o f S u b j e c t s Aware of the B e n e f i t s i n Usi 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 the T r a n s f e r Task as Reported Under the Three C o n d i t i o n s (N=108) CONDITIONS CONTROL SIMPLE INSTRUCTION ELABORATED INSTRUCTION PA WL PA WL 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 9-8.5-a-<n 7.5-"o ° 7-i § 6.5 H C o £ 6H 5.5-5-4.5-» Legend « Control o Simple Instruction  o Daborcrted Instruction T" —I 6 grade Figure 1. Mean No. of Items Correctly Recalled of Paired-Associates at the Learning Phase by Three Conditions and Grades (N=108) 5 2 25.5-r 21.5 3 A 5 grade Figure. 2. Mean No. of Items Correctly Recalled of Word-lists at the Learning Phase by Three Conditions and Grades (N=108) 5 3 Figure 3. Mean No of Items Correctly Recalled of Paired-Associates at the Transfer Phase by Three Conditions and Grades (N=108) 11-1 2 3 4 5 grade Figure 4. Mean No. of Items Correctly Recalled of Word-lists at the Transfer Phase by Three Conditions and Grades (N=108) APPENDIX A PAIRED-ASSOCIATE S t r i n g - Box Spoon - Egg Dog - Gate S t i c k - R i c e I r o n - Candy LIST (TASK 1) Clown Needle Swing D o l l Frog Banana B a l l o o n Bathtub Book Cage 56 APPENDIX B CATEGORICAL WORD-LIST (TASK 2) F r u i t s Apple, Pear, Grape Animals Monkey, Elephant, L i o n F u r n i t u r e - Sofa, Table, Bed Jobs Teacher, Lawyer, Doctor Vegetables C a r r o t s , L e t t u c e , C e l e r y V e h i c l e s Car, Bus, Truck S p o r t s Hockey, Tennis, B a s e b a l l Instruments Trumpet, Piano, G u i t a r C i t i e s M ontreal, Vancouver, Toronto C o l o r s - Green, Red, Blue 57 APPENDIX C PAIRED-ASSOCIATE ILLUSTRATION & PRACTICE LIST Marble - Thumb C a r r o t - B a r r e l Towel - P l a t e Shovel - Popcorn 58 APPENDIX D CATEGORICAL WORD-LIST ILLUSTRATION & PRACTICE LIST Flowers - Rose, T u l i p , L i l y C l o t h i n g - S h i r t , Dress, Pants Body P a r t s - Arm, Leg, Head Meat - Pork, Beef, Lamb APPENDIX E TRANSFER TASK M i l k , Cheese, Yogurt O n t a r i o , A l b e r t a , B r i t i s h Columbia Telephone, Radio, T e l e v i s i o n Spoon, Fork, K n i f e Hot, Cold, Warm Cow - Tent H a i r - Pipe Hand - Hat Pork - Cake C e l e r y - S t a i r s 60 APPENDIX F CONTROL CONDITION You are going t o p l a y a memory game. The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s game i s t o remember and r e c a l l as many words as you can. For the f i r s t t a s k, the words are p a i r e d t o g e t h e r and you should remember them as p a i r s . At the end of the l i s t , you w i l l be g i v e n the f i r s t word of the p a i r and you have t o r e c a l l the second word. For example, here are two p a i r s : T r a c t o r - Mask Rope - Eye I want you t o l e a r n them ( s u b j e c t s are g i v e n 15 seconds t o l e a r n each p a i r ) . Now, i f I g i v e you t h i s word, T r a c t o r - (Rope - ), what was the ot h e r word of the p a i r ? L e t ' s t r y another two p a i r s . I want you t o do the same t h i n g as you d i d b e f o r e . Marble - Thumb C a r r o t - B a r r e l For the second task, you should remember the words on the c a r d as a group. At the end of the t a s k , you w i l l be g i v e n the category name, and you t e l l me what are the words on the category. For example, here are two l i s t s of words: Flowers - Rose, T u l i p , L i l y C l o t h i n g - S h i r t , Dress, Pants I f I g i v e you the category name Flowers ( C l o t h i n g ) , what are the words i n the category? Now, here are two more l i s t s o f words f o r you t o p r a c t i c e , I want you t o do the same t h i n g as you d i d b e f o r e . Body P a r t s - Arm, Leg, Head Meat - Pork, Beef, Lamb 61 APPENDIX G SIMPLE INSTRUCTION CONDITION You are going t o p l a y a memory game. The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s game i s t o remember and r e c a l l as many words as you can. For the f i r s t task, the words are p a i r e d t o g e t h e r and you should remember them as p a i r s . At the end of the l i s t , you w i l l be g i v e n the f i r s t word on the p a i r and you t e l l me what i s the second word of the p a i r . One " t r i c k " you can use t o h e l p you remember which two words go t o g e t h e r i s t o make a sentence t o connect the words. For example, here are two p a i r s : T r a c t o r - Mask Rope - Eye The sentences I w i l l make f o r these p a i r s a re: The TRACTOR ran over the MASK. The ROPE moved over the EYE. When you are g i v e n the f i r s t word on the p a i r , T r a c t o r (Rope), you r e c a l l the sentence and the sentence h e l p s you t o remember the second word on the p a i r . Now, here are two more p a i r s o f words f o r you t o p r a c t i c e . I want you t o use the same " t r i c k " I j u s t taught you and use i t t o h e l p you t o l e a r n these words. Marble - Thumb C a r r o t - B a r r e l For the second task, you should remember the words on the c a r d as a group. At the end of the t a s k , you w i l l be g i v e n the category name, and you t e l l me what are the words on t h a t category. One " t r i c k " you can use t o h e l p you remember the words on the c a r d i s t o connect the ca t e g o r y name wit h the words on the c a r d . For example, here are two l i s t s o f words: Flowers - Rose, T u l i p , L i l y C l o t h i n g - S h i r t , Dress, Pants 62 What you can do i s t o say these words t o y o u r s e l f : "Here are t h r e e k i n d s o f Flowers - Rose, T u l i p , L i l y ; here 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 you are g i v e n the category name Flowers ( C l o t h i n g ) , i t g i v e s you a c l u e o f the words t h a t belong t o the category. Now, here are two more l i s t s of words f o r you t o p r a c t i c e , I want you t o use the same " t r i c k " t h a t I j u s t taught you and use i t t o h e l p you t o l e a r n the words. Body P a r t s - Arm, Leg, Head Meat - Pork, Beef, Lamb 63 APPENDIX H ELABORATED INSTRUCTION CONDITION Not a l l memory "tr icks" are h e l p f u l for the same task. Some "tr icks" are bet ter or more h e l p f u l for one type of task than i s the other. Therefore, when you are given a task to l e a r n , you should f i r s t look at what the task i s and then se lec t the "tr ick" that would help you the most. For example, the sentence "tr ick" works we l l when you have to remember two words that are pa ired together, l i k e these p a i r s : Hammer - B e l l The HAMMER h i t the BELL. Arm - Bread The ARM picked up the BREAD. On the other hand, when you are given a task to l earn that involves with a long l i s t of words such as t h i s : Rock, B o t t l e , Wheel, F i s h then the sentence "tr ick" would not be of a help to you because i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to connect so many words in to a sentence. For the category-naming " t r i c k " , i t works wel l only when the words a l l have one th ing i n common, that i s , they f a l l under the same category such as t h i s l i s t : Appliances - Toaster, R e f r i g e r a t o r , Dishwasher, Oven However, the category-naming "tr ick" i s not useful when the words are not connected with one another l i k e t h i s l i s t : Vocabularies - Prevent, Brave, J o i n , Hazardous, Contagious S i n c e 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 category name t o thes e words would not be a b l e t o h e l p you t o d e f i n e the meaning of these words. 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 , examine the t a s k f i r s t , determine which " t r i c k " would be 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 and then use t h a t " t r i c k " t o h e l p 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 ) d i d you used f o r the t r a n s f e r t a s k ? 2. Why d i d you s e l e c t t h i s / t h e s e s t r a t e g y ( i e s ) t o h e l p you? 3 . How d i d the s t r a t e g y ( i e s ) h e l p you t o l e a r n the words? 4. P l e a s e g i v e an example o f the s t r a t e g y ( i e s ) you u s e d . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097229/manifest

Comment

Related Items