Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of levels of elaboration on learners’ strategic processing of text

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the current work, we examined learners’ comprehension when engaged with elaborative processing strategies. In Experiment 1, we randomly assigned students to one of five elaborative processing conditions and addressed differences in learners’ lower- and higher-order learning outcomes and ability to employ elaborative strategies. Findings indicated no significant differences among conditions on learning outcomes. However, learners better able to employ elaborative processing strategies performed better on outcome measures. Experiment 2 extended this research and addressed whether there would be differences across elaborative processing conditions in learners’ comprehension at delayed testing. We also examined the role of motivation in performance and strategy use. Findings indicated no differences on the outcome measures at delayed testing; however, there were significant differences in learners’ performance on an integration outcome at immediate testing. In addition, significant positive correlations were indicated for several outcome measures, strategy use and mastery orientation. Future research should further consider instructional scaffolds to promote learners’ strategic processing and critical individual difference variables as they effect elaborative processing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 286–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S., & Th Liozou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992). Classroom goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (1st ed.). New York: Longman’s Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, R. L., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., & Sprecht, J. (1999). Evaluating the efficacy of elaborative strategies for remembering expository text. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 170–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(3), 317–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Vye, N. J., Franks, J. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynksi, K. J., et al. (1982). Differences in approaches to learning: An overview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 390–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The benefits of embedded question adjuncts for low and high structure builders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 339–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & La Vancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, E. A., Radosevich, D. J., & Chasteen, C. S. (2003). Construct- and criterion-related validity of four commonly used goal orientation instruments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 434–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51(2), 939–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornisch, M., & Sperling, R. (2004). Elaborative questions in web-based text materials. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(1), 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornisch, M., & Sperling, R. (2006). Facilitated learning from technology-enhanced text: Effects of prompted elaborative interrogation. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 156–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornisch, M., & Sperling, R. (2008). Elaborative interrogation and adjuncts to technology-enhanced text: An examination of ecological validity. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(3), 317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 57–88). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2007). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, G. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook on research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Leon, J. A., & Otero, J. C. (2002a). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Person, N., & Hu, X. (2002b). Improving comprehension through discourse processes. New Directions in Teaching Learning, 89, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C., Symons, S., & Richards, C. (1996). Elaborative interrogation effects for children with learning disabilities: Isolated facts versus connected prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 19–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. (1989). The effects of learner-generated elaborations on concept learning from prose. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 205–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. J. (1997). Effects of three types of elaboration on learning concepts from text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. J. (2004). Material appropriate processing and elaboration: The impact of balanced and complementary types of processing on learning concepts from text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 221–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 51–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl, B., & Woloshyn, V. E. (1994). Using elaborative interrogation to facilitate acquisition of factual information in cooperative learning settings: One good strategy deserves another. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 465–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keiwra, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Christensen, M., Kim, S., & Risch, N. (1991). Effects of repetition on recall and notetaking: Strategies for learning from lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 120–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhara-Kojima, K., & Hatano, G. (1991). Contribution of content knowledge and learning ability to the learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, D. A., & Remedios, R. (2007). Do undergraduates’ motives for study change as they progress through their degree? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 379–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, V. L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 508–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (2009). The importance of teaching reading strategies. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35(2), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Reading framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 437–443.

    Article  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, 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., & Snyder, B. L. (1988). Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 268–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, C. M., Sperling, R. A., & Dornisch, M. M. (2009). A comparison of the effects of students’ expository text comprehension. Instructional Science (published online).

  • Robinson, D. H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning. Reading Research and Instruction, 37(2), 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiffert, T. L. (1993). The effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 642–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiffert, T. L. (1994). Enhancing memory for main ideas using elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 360–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2007). Cognitive psychology: Mind and brain. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, B. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1979). Constraints on effective elaboration: Effects of precision and subject generation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 769–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, B. S., Littlefield, J., Bransford, J. D., & Persampieri, M. (1984). Elaboration and knowledge acquisition. Memory & Cognition, 12(5), 522–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons, S., & Greene, C. (1993). Elaborative interrogation and children’s learning of unfamiliar facts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 219–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., Porter, L., Belsito, L., & Yearsley, T. (1999). Use of elaboration strategies by students in grades two, four, and six. The Elementary School Journal, 99(3), 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., Waller, T. G., Wood, E., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1993). The effect of prior knowledge on an immediate and delayed associative learning task following elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 36–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., & Wood, E. (1994). Elaborative interrogation examined at encoding and retrieval. Learning and Instruction, 4, 139–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., Wood, E., Desmarais, S., Sims, S., & Kalra, M. (1997). Mechanisms that facilitate the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 682–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Khan, M. (1994). Isolating variables that impact on or detract from the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Kraftcheck, E. R. (2003). When can a lack of structure facilitate strategic processing of information? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., Wood, E., McDermott, C., & McLaren, J. (2000). Enhancing learning through strategy instruction and group interaction: Is active generations of elaborations critical? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. The Elementary School Journal, 92(2), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., & Stockley, D. B. (1995). Helping students acquire belief-inconsistent and belief consistent science facts: Comparisons between individual and dyad study using elaborative-interrogation, self-selected study and repetitious-reading. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facilitates adult learning of factual paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 513–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., & Hewitt, K. L. (1993). Assessing the impact of elaborative strategy instruction relative to spontaneous strategy use in high achievers. Exceptionality, 4(2), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., Needham, D. R., Williams, J., Roberts, R., & Willoughby, T. (1994a). Evaluating the quality and impact of mediators for learning when using associative memory strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8(7), 679–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children’s learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 741–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Kaspar, V., & Idle, T. (1994b). Enhancing adolescents’ recall of factual content: The impact of provided versus self-generated elaborations. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Long Island University, Brookville, NY, USA

    Michele Dornisch

  2. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Rayne A. Sperling & Jill A. Zeruth

Authors
  1. Michele Dornisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rayne A. Sperling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jill A. Zeruth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Dornisch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dornisch, M., Sperling, R.A. & Zeruth, J.A. The effects of levels of elaboration on learners’ strategic processing of text. Instr Sci 39, 1–26 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9111-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9111-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation