Elaborations in Expository Text Impose a Substantial Time Cost but Do Not Enhance Learning
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.
KeywordsElaborations Expository text Memory Student learning Main ideas
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Goldstein, E. B. (2005). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
- Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model-comparison approach. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
- Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- OpenStax College. (2014). Psychology. Houston, TX: OpenStax College.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & BaconGoogle Scholar