Advertisement

Elaborations in Expository Text Impose a Substantial Time Cost but Do Not Enhance Learning

  • Nola Daley
  • Katherine A. Rawson
Intervention Study

Abstract

Textbook passages commonly include elaborations (details supporting main ideas) with the assumption that elaborations will improve learning of the main ideas. However, elaborations increase text length, which subsequently increases the reading time of that text. These observations lead to the two focal questions of interest in the current study: What is the time cost imposed by including elaborations within textbooks? Does the benefit of elaborations for enhancing memory for main ideas outweigh this time cost? In three experiments, students studied elaborated versus unelaborated versions of psychology textbook passages. Two days later, students completed final tests, including cued recall for main ideas and comprehension tests. In all experiments, we found a substantial cost in terms of increased reading time for the elaborated text but no evidence of increased memory for main ideas to offset this cost. To facilitate further interpretation of the similar test performance observed for elaborated versus unelaborated texts, experiment 2 ruled out functional floor or ceiling effects and established that both text versions enhanced learning (but did so to a similar extent). These results indicate that elaborations embedded within textbook passages may not facilitate learning and that unelaborated texts may be more efficient than elaborated texts.

Keywords

Elaborations Expository text Memory Student learning Main ideas 

Notes

Funding Information

The research reported here was supported by a James S. McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Bridging Brain, Mind and Behavior Collaborative Award.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allwood, C. M., Wikstrom, T., & Reder, L. (1982). The effect of format and structure of text material on recallability. Poetics, 11(2), 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. C., & Neely, J. H. (1996). Interference and inhibition in memory retrieval. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 237–313). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
  4. Braver, S. L., Thoemmes, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (2014). Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Applying the coherence principle: Adding material can hurt learning. In E-learning and the science of instruction (pp. 150–176). San Franscisco, CA: Pfeiffer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., & Breadley, C. (2004). The extent to which psychology students read textbooks: A multiple class analysis of reading across the psychology curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(3), 227–232.Google Scholar
  7. Dal Martello, M. F. (1984). The effect of illustrative details on the recall of main points in simple fictional and factual passages. Discourse Processes, 7(4), 483–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Vesta, F. J., & Finke, F. M. (1985). Metacognition, elaboration, and knowledge acquisition: Implications for instructional design. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33(4), 285–293.Google Scholar
  9. Earhard, M. (1967). Cued recall and free recall as a function of the number of items per cue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(2), 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, R. H. (1985). Recall of central facts from text. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference; Dec. 3–7; San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of ‘seductive details’ on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldstein, E. B. (2005). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  14. Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27(1), 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students’ recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howe, M. J. A., & Singer, L. (1975). Presentation variables and students’ activities in meaningful learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(1), 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model-comparison approach. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  18. Kim, S. I., & Van Dusen, L. M. (1988). The role of prior knowledge and elaboration in text comprehension and memory: A comparison of self-generated elaboration and text-provided elaboration. The American Journal of Psychology, 111(3), 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Maner, J. K. (2014). Let’s put our money where our mouth is. If authors are to change their ways, reviewers (and editors) must change with them. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maxwell, S. E. (2004). The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(1), 13–18.Google Scholar
  24. McDaniel, M. A., Dunay, P. K., Lyman, B. J., & Kerwin, M. L. E. (1988). Effects of elaboration and relational distinctiveness on sentence memory. The American Journal of Psychology, 101(3), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohr, P., Glover, J. A., & Ronning, R. R. (1984). The effect of related and unrelated details on the recall of major ideas in prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(2), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nairne, J. S. (2002). The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Memory, 10(5–6), 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. OpenStax College. (2014). Psychology. Houston, TX: OpenStax College.Google Scholar
  28. Palmere, M., Benton, S. L., Glover, J. A., & Ronning, R. R. (1983). Elaboration and recall of main ideas in prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 898–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phifer, A. J., McNickle, B., Ronning, R. R., & Glover, J. A. (1983). The effect of details on the recall of major ideas in text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291.Google Scholar
  32. Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., Walsh, M., & Dunlosky, J. (2018). Investigating and explaining the effects of successive relearning on long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(1), 57–71.Google Scholar
  34. Reder, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1983). Passage length and recall with test size held constant: Effects of modality, pacing, and learning set. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(6), 667–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  41. Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Starcher, K., & Proffitt, D. (2011). Encouraging students to read: What professors are (and aren’t) doing about it. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 396–407.Google Scholar
  43. Stein, B. S., Morris, C. D., & Bransford, J. D. (1978). Constraints on effective elaboration. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 707–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stein, B. S., Littlefield, J., Bransford, J. D., & Persampieri, M. (1984). Elaboration and knowledge acquisition. Memory & Cognition, 12(5), 522–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & BaconGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Dam, G., Brinkerink-Carlier, M. (1984) The Influence of Selective Extension of Text Length on Free Recall of the Constituent Elements of Information. The Journal of General Psychology, 111(2), 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Dam, G., Brinkerink-Carlier, M., & Kok, I. (1986). Influence of visual and verbal embellishment on free recall of the paragraphs of a text. The American Journal of Psychology, 99, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Bolger, A., Younger, J., & Kaspar, V. (1993). Effectiveness of elaboration strategies for grade school children as a function of academic achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56(2), 240–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zamary, A., & Rawson, K. A. (2018). Which technique is most effective for learning declarative concepts—Provided examples, generated examples, or both? Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations