Instructional Science

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 81–90 | Cite as

Depressive effects of underlining and adjunct questions on children's recall of text

  • John P. Rickards
  • Peter R. Denner
Article

Abstract

Half of a sample of ten-year-old school children (N=69) were given conceptual postquestions after every paragraph of text, while the other half were not given any postquestions. Additionally, these children either generated their own underlining of one sentence per paragraph, received text with topic sentences underlined for them, or were given text without underlining of any kind. The results indicated that the readers preponderantly chose for underlining subordinate, passage details rather than superordinate, conceptual material, even when given conceptual postquestions focusing on the topic sentences of the passage. Recall of passage details was most depressed when children were provided with both underlining and conceptual postquestions. These results suggested a comprehension rather than a metacomprehension deficit, whereby underlining and adjunct questions may hinder rather than help recall performance in young readers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, A. L. (1977). “Development, Schooling, and the Acquisition of Knowledge about Knowledge: Comments on Chapter 7 by Nelson,” in R. C., Anderson, R. J., Spiro and W. E., Montague (eds.), Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, A. L. and Smiley, S. S. (1977). “Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: a problem of metacognitive development,” Child Development, 48: 1–8.Google Scholar
  3. Cashen, V. W. and Leicht, K. L. (1970). “Role of the isolation effect in a formal educational setting,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 61: 484–486.Google Scholar
  4. Cronbach, L. J. (1977). Educational Psychology (3rd Ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  5. Crouse, J. H. and Idstein, P. (1972). “Effects of encoding cues on prose learning,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 63: 309–313.Google Scholar
  6. Kendall, J. and Mason, J. A., (1978). “Facilitating reading comprehension through text structure manipulation.” Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto.Google Scholar
  7. Klare, C. R. (1976). “A second look at the validity of readability formulas,” Journal of Reading behavior, 8: 129–152.Google Scholar
  8. Rickards, J. P. and August, G. J. (1975). “Generative underlining strategies in prose recall,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 67: 860–865.Google Scholar
  9. Rickards, J. P. and Denner, P. R. (1978). “Inserted questions as aids to reading text,” Instructional Science, 7: 313–346.Google Scholar
  10. Rickards, J. P. and DiVesta, F. J. (1974). “Type and frequency of questions in processing textual material,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 66: 354–362.Google Scholar
  11. Rickards, J. P. and Hatcher, C. W. (1978). “Interspersed meaningful learning questions as semantic cues for poor comprehenders,” Reading Research Quarterly, 13: 538–553.Google Scholar
  12. Swenson, I. and Kulhavy, R. W. (1974). “Adjunct questions and the comprehension of prose by children,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 66: 212–215.Google Scholar
  13. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Yelon, S. L. and Weinstein, G. W. (1977). A Teacher's World: Psychology in the Classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Rickards
    • 1
  • Peter R. Denner
    • 1
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations