Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 113–145 | Cite as

Material-appropriate processing: A contextualist approach to reading and studying strategies

  • Mark A. McDaniel
  • Gilles O. Einstein
Article

Abstract

Processing strategies or text adjuncts that are mnemonically effective with some types of text produce no benefits with other text types. A framework for understanding these seemingly inconsistent mnemonic effects across different types of text is presented. The framework suggests that two types of conceptual elaboration are important for free recall: individual-item processing and relational processing. The mnemonic effectiveness of text adjuncts or other manipulations to increase elaboration of a text will depend on: (1) the type of conceptual elaboration induced by the particular text adjunct or study strategy; (2) the type of elaboration invited by the text itself; and (3) the overlap between the processing induced by the text adjunct or study strategy and the processing invited by the text itself. Significant enhancement in recall is anticipated only to the extent that the text adjunct or study strategy encourages processing that is complementary to the processing invited by the material itself. The viability of this framework is demonstrated in a review of the pertinent literature on the mnemonic effects of encoding difficulty. Then, research stimulated by the framework that uses educationally relevant study and text adjuncts (embedded questions, outlining, adjunct pictures) is reviewed. Predictions generated by the framework are consistently upheld.

Key words

memory learning elaboration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alba, J. W., Alexander, S. G., Hasher, L., and Caniglia, K. (1981). The role of context in the encoding of information.J. Exper. Psychol. Human. Learn. Mem. 7: 283–292.Google Scholar
  2. Andre, T. (1987). Questions and learning from reading.Quest. Exchange 1: 47–86.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., and Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 11: 717–726.Google Scholar
  4. Britton, B. K., Graesser, A. C., Glynn, S. M., Hamilton, T., and Penland, M. (1983). Use of cognitive capacity in reading: Effects of some content features of text.Disc. Processes 6: 39–57.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, L. K., and Mayer, R. E. (1983). Reading strategy training for meaningful learning from prose. In Pressley, M., and Levin, J. R. (eds.),Cognitive Process Research: Educational Applications Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Craik, F. I. M., and Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 11: 671–684.Google Scholar
  7. Cuddy, E., and Einstein, G. O. (1983). The effects of individual item and relational processing on long-term retention. Paper presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association Meeting. Atlanta, Georgia, March 1983.Google Scholar
  8. Dinnel, D., and Glover, J. A. (1985). Processing in a letter-deletion condition.Bull. Psychon. Soc. 23: 365–367.Google Scholar
  9. Einstein, G. O., and Hunt, R. R. (1980). Levels of processing and organization: Additive effects of individual-item and relational processing.J. Exper. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 6: 588–598.Google Scholar
  10. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Bowers, C. A., and Stevens, D. T. (1984). Memory for prose: The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing.J. Exper. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognt. 10: 133–143.Google Scholar
  11. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Owen, P., and Cote, N. C. (1989). Material appropriate processing. Unpublished manuscript, Furman University.Google Scholar
  12. Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., and Smith, S. (1985). Note taking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information.J. Educat. Psychol. 77: 522–532.Google Scholar
  13. Fletcher, C. R., and Bloom, C. P. (1988). Causal reasoning in the comprehension of simple narrative texts.J. Mem. Lang. 27: 235–244.Google Scholar
  14. Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., Perfetto, G. A., Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., and Littlefield, J. (1982). Learning from explicit versus implicit texts.J. Exper. Psychol. Gen. 111: 414–422.Google Scholar
  15. Glover, J. A., Bruning, R. H., and Plake, B. A. (1982). Distinctiveness of encoding and recall of text materials.J. Educat. Psychol. 74: 522–534.Google Scholar
  16. Glover, J. A., Plake, B. S., Roberts, B., Zimmer, J. W., and Palmere, M. (1981). Distinctiveness of encoding: The effects of paraphrasing and drawing inferences on memory from prose.J. Educat. Psychol. 73: 736–744.Google Scholar
  17. Graf, P., and Levy, B. A. (1984). Reading and remembering: Conceptual and perceptual processing involved in reading and related passages.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 23: 405–424.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives.Rev. Educat. Res. 55: 47–85.Google Scholar
  19. Hammes, K. M., and Petros, T. V. (1988). The influence of text components and reading ability on the frequency and duration of lookbacks. Paper presented at the Sixtieth Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, April 1988.Google Scholar
  20. Hunt, R. R., and Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 20: 497–514.Google Scholar
  21. Hunt, R. R., and Marschark, M. (1987). Yet another picture of imagery: The roles of shared and distinctive information in memory. In McDaniel, M. A., and Pressley, M. (eds.),Imagery and Related Mnemonic Processes: Theories, Individual Differences, and Applications Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 129–150.Google Scholar
  22. Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 17: 649–688.Google Scholar
  23. Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory explanations. In Cermak, L. S. and Craik, F. I. M. (eds.),Levels of Processing in Human Memory Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 429–446.Google Scholar
  24. Kintsch, W. (1974).The Representation of Meaning in Memory Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  25. Kintsch, W., and van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychol. Rev. 85: 363–394.Google Scholar
  26. Kintsch, W., and Young, S. R. (1984). Selective recall of decision-relevant information from texts.Mem. Cognit. 12: 112–117.Google Scholar
  27. Levin, J. R. (1983). Pictorial strategies for learning: Practical illustrations. In Pressley, M., and Levin, J. R. (eds.),Cognitive Strategy Research: Educational Applications Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Levin, J. R., and Berry, A. K. (1980). Children's learning of all the news that's fit to picture.Educat. Commun. Tech. 28: 177–285.Google Scholar
  29. Levy, B. A. (1981). Interactive processes during reading. In Lesgold, A. M., and Perfetti, C. A. (eds.),Interactive Processes in Reading Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
  30. Mandler, G. (1979). Organization, memory, and mental structures. In Puff, C. R., (eds.),Memory Organization and Structure Academic Press, New York, pp. 303–319.Google Scholar
  31. Masson, M. E. J., and McDaniel, M. A. (1981). The role of organizational processes in long-term retention.J. Exper. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 7: 100–110.Google Scholar
  32. Mastropieri, M. A., and Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Increasing the content area learning of learning disabled students: Research implementation.Learn. Disab. Res. (in press).Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E. (1987). Instructional variables that influence cognitive processes during reading. In Britton, B. K., and Glynn, S. M. (eds.),Executive Control Processes in Reading Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 201–216.Google Scholar
  34. McDaniel, M. A. (1984). The role of elaborative and schema processes in story memory.Mem. Cognit. 12: 46–51.Google Scholar
  35. McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., Dunay, P. K., and Cobb, R. E. (1986). Encoding difficulty and memory: Toward a unifying theory.J. Mem. Lang. 25: 645–656.Google Scholar
  36. McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., and Lollis, T. (1988). Qualitative and quantitative considerations in encoding difficulty effects.Mem. Cognit. 16: 8–14.Google Scholar
  37. McDaniel, M. A., Friedman, A., and Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1978). Remembering the levels of information in words.Mem. Cognit. 6: 156–164.Google Scholar
  38. McDaniel, M. A., and Kerwin, M. L. (1987). Long-term prose retention: Is an organizational schema sufficient?Disc. Processes 10: 237–252.Google Scholar
  39. McDaniel, M. A., and Masson, M. E. (1977). Long-term retention: When incidental semantic processing fails.J. Exper. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 3: 270–281.Google Scholar
  40. McDaniel, M. A., Ryan, E. B., and Cunningham, C. J. (1989). Encoding difficulty and memory enhancement for young and older readers.Psychol. Ag. (in press).Google Scholar
  41. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975).The Organization of Prose and Its Effect on Recall North-Holland, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., and Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 16: 519–533.Google Scholar
  43. Norman, D. A. (1978). Notes toward a complex theory of learning. In Lesgold, A. M., Pellegrino, J. W., Fokkema, S. D., and Glaser, R. (eds.),Cognitive Psychology and Instruction Plenum, New York, pp. 39–48.Google Scholar
  44. Palmer, D. J., and Goetz, E. T. (1988). Selection and use of study strategies: The role of the studier's beliefs about self and strategies. In Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., and Alexander, P. A. (eds.),Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp. 41–61.Google Scholar
  45. Pressley, M., and Levin, J. R. (eds.) (1983).Cognitive Strategy Research: Educational Applications Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Recht, D. R., and Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text.J. Educat. Psychol. 80: 16–20.Google Scholar
  47. Reder, L. M., Charney, D. H., and Morgan, K. I. (1986). The role of elaborations in learning a skill from a instructional text.Mem. Cognit. 14: 64–78.Google Scholar
  48. Reynolds, R. E., and Shirey, L. L. (1988). The role of attention in studying and learning. In Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., and Alexander, P. A. (eds.),Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp. 77–100.Google Scholar
  49. Rickards, J. P. (1979). Adjunct postquestions in text: A critical review of methods and processes.Rev. Educat. Res. 49: 181–196.Google Scholar
  50. Roediger, H. L., III, Weldon, M. S., and Challis, B. A. (1989). Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. In Roediger, H. L., III, and Craik, F. I. M. (eds.),Varieties of Memory and Consciousness: Essays in Honour of Endel Tulving Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 3–41.Google Scholar
  51. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1966). Learning from written instructional materials: An exploration of the control of inspectional behaviors by test-like events.Am. Educat. Res. J. 3: 241–249.Google Scholar
  52. Scruggs, T. E., and Mastropieri, M. A. (1989). Reconstructive elaborations: A model for content area learning.Am. Educat. Res. J. (in press).Google Scholar
  53. Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., and Voss, J. F. (1979). Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 18: 275–290.Google Scholar
  54. Trabasso, T., and Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events.J. Mem. Lang. 24: 595–611.Google Scholar
  55. Trabasso, T., and van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events.J. Mem. Lang. 24: 612–630.Google Scholar
  56. Tyler, S. W., Hertel, P. T., McCallum, M. C., and Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory.J. Exper. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 5: 607–617.Google Scholar
  57. van den Broek, P. (1989). The effects of causal structure on the comprehension of narratives: Implications for education.Read. Psychol. Int. Quart. (in press).Google Scholar
  58. Waddill, P. J., McDaniel, M. A., and Einstein, G. O. (1988). Illustrations as adjuncts to prose: A text-appropriate processing approach.J. Educat. Psychol. 80: 457–464.Google Scholar
  59. Weaver, P. A., and Dickinson, D. K. (1982). Scratching below the surface structure: Exploring the usefulness of story grammars.Disc. Processes 5: 225–243.Google Scholar
  60. Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., and Alexander, P. A. (eds.) (1988).Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation Academic Press, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  61. Winograd, P., and Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., and Alexander, P. A. (eds.),Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp. 121–139.Google Scholar
  62. Zacks, R., Hasher, L., Sanft, H., and Rose, K. C. (1983). Encoding effort and memory: A cautionary note.J. Exper. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 9: 747–756.Google Scholar
  63. Zelinski, E. M., and Gilewski, M. J. (1988). Memory for prose and aging: A meta-analysis. In Howe, M. L., and Brainerd, C. J. (eds.),Cognitive Development in Adulthood: Progress in Cognitive Development Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 133–160.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. McDaniel
    • 1
  • Gilles O. Einstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyFurman UniversityGreenville

Personalised recommendations