Analyzing a problem before reading facilitates subsequent recall of a relevant text for both novices and experts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1989 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 2, problem analysis before text study produced a significant overall difference in free recall, F(1, 82) = 6.15, p < .05, with no significant treatment-by-expertise interaction, F(1, 82) = .01, p < .93. → Schmidt 1989

Evidence¶

Schmidt 1989¶

Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory Models in the Processing of Science Text: The Role of Prior Knowledge Activation Through Small-Group Discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 610-619. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.81.4.610

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 2 assigned 88 Dutch secondary students (46 ninth-grade novices, 42 tenth-grade experts) to analyze the blood cell or control problem in small groups before studying a 2,200-word text on osmosis and diffusion, then free recall. Experts recalled more overall, F(1, 82) = 82.47, p < .001, but both expertise levels benefited from problem analysis.

"A sig- nificant difference was found for the total number of propo- sitions correctly recalled, F(1, 82) = 6.15, MSe = 116.69,19 < .05."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Problem-based tutorial discussion of a relevant problem before studying an expository text increases the number of accurate propositions recalled from that text — related
• Prior-knowledge activation instructions before study had little effect on retention in Experiment 2 — related
• The recall benefit of prior problem-based discussion applies to both explanatory and descriptive propositions, with no interaction between treatment and proposition type — related
• Problem-based discussion prior to studying a text does not increase the number of inferences during immediate free recall — related
• The text-recall benefit of problem analysis is confined to explanatory propositions; descriptive facts are not better remembered — related