Passage familiarity (prior related knowledge) correlates .52 with recall, and only familiarity, not imageability, affected one-week delayed recall¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r? · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 1981 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 The correlation between passage familiarity and recall was .52. → Gagne 1981 q2 i? For one-week recall of passage propositions, results showed an effect for familiarity but no effect for imageability when the two were independently manipulated. → Gagne 1981 (2)

Evidence¶

Gagne 1981¶

Gagne, Ellen D. (1981). Comprehension and the Long-Term Recall of Information. Final Report. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED221831

q2 · i3 · large effect, r = 0.52 · causal · r?

In the project's passage-learning studies, familiarity was defined as the average number of related sentences seventh graders generated to passage stimuli. The report states "The correlation between passagefamiliarity and recall was.52."

"The correlation between passagefamiliarity and recall was.52."

Gagne 1981 (2)¶

Gagne, Ellen D. (1981). Comprehension and the Long-Term Recall of Information. Final Report. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED221831

q2 · i? · causal · r?

In Experiment 3 of the prior-knowledge article, familiarity and rated imageability of passages were independently manipulated. The report states the one-week recall results "showed an effect for familiarity butno effect for imag ability".

"The results for one-weekrecall of pas age propositionsshowed an effect for familiarity butno effect for imag ability."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Prior Knowledge Determines New Learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Passage cohesion showed no effect on delayed recall; means showed greater recall from less cohesive passages — related
• The five passage attributes are significantly intercorrelated, with imagery, interest, and linkage highly correlated — related
• Interest-evoking text revision strategies raised fourth and sixth graders' recall of a history passage but not acquisition of abstract, general information — related
• Prior knowledge correlates negatively with delayed ICL and ECL and positively with delayed GCL, consistent with meta-analytic findings — related