enriching children's recall of picture-dictionary definitions with interrogation and elaborated...

Enriching Children's Recall of Picture-Dictionary Definitions With Interrogation and Elaborated Pictures Eileen Wood Michael Pressley James E. Tumure Ruth Walton

Eileen Wood, Michael Pressley, and Ruth Wilson are at the University of Western Ontario. James E. Turnure is at the University of Minnesota.

Preschool-age children were presented four picture-dictionary definitions to learn. Definitions were accompanied either by pictures detailing all the attributes of the definition referent (elaborated pictures) or simpler, less complete illustrations (nonelaborated pictures). After one presentation, the definition was repeated either as a series of questions to which the child responded, or as simple declarative restatements. Total recall of information stated in the definitions was improved by the elaborated pictures. The presence of elaborated pictures also resulted in greater recall congruent with the defined concept, lout not present in the definition as stated (i.e., inferences). Questioning produced a higher percentage of paraphrased recall (i.e., nonverbatlm recall of information stated in the definitions). These latter two findings are consistent with the Interpretation that both elaborated pictures and questions lead preschoolers to process more extensively information provided in definitions.

ECTJ, VOL. 35, NO. 1, PAGES 43-52 ISSN 0148-5806

Stimulated in part by correlations between vocabulary knowledge and general competence (e.g., Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Botzum, 1951; Clark, 1972; Davis, 1944, 1968; Jensen, 1980; Matarazzo, 1972; Sternberg & Powetl, 1983; see Mezynski, 1983, for a review), and by successes in im- proving verbal competence through vocabulary instruction (e.g., Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; McKeown, Beck, Oman- son, & Perfetti, 1983), there has been grow- ing interest in methods to facilitate vocabulary learning, with most research focussing on one important component of vocabulary learning, the acquisition of vocabulary- definition associations (Jenkins & Dixon, 1983; Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, in press). One notable finding is that many "tried and true" methods of vocabulary learning are not very potent. Vocabulary learning is not improved relative to "no- strategy" control conditions by having students search for context dues, by present- ing vocabulary in sentence contexts, or by generating sentences with vocabulary used correctly (e.g., Ahlfors, 1980; Crist & Pet- rone, 1977; Gipe, 1979, 1981; Hare, 1976; Johnson, Pittelman, Hayes, Levin, Shriberg, & Toms-Bronowski, 1984; McDaniel & Pressley, 1984; McDaniel & Tillman, 1985; Presstey, Levin, & Miller, 1982). These negative outcomes make ap- parent the need to validate experimentally the potency of any proposed method of vocabulary learning, no matter how theoreti-

44 ECTJ SPRING1987

cally compelling the rationale for the method.

Because preschoolers' spontaneous use of extensive processing is far short of the processing that they can do given sufficient prompting (Kail & Hagen, 1977; Pressley & Levin, 1983a, 1983b), we hypothesized that preschoolers' learning of vocabulary- meaning associations could be improved by interventions that increased the likelihood of extensive, elaborative processing during the study of vocabulary words and their definitions. The present experiment specifically addressed how children's learning of definitions is affected by two presentation variables, (1) questioning and (2) the elabo- rateness of illustrations accompanying definitions.

Preschoolers heard picture-dictionary presentations of four vocabulary items. Use of picture-dictionary definitions was motivated by the concern that materials in the study be ecologically valid for preschoolers~ Such definitions are listings of attributes (e.g., Hayward, 1980) and were presented first as a series of declarative sentences, followed by reiteration either as declarative sentences or as questions the child had to answer. The criterion task was recall of the definitions. Because the children already were somewhat familiar with the four concepts that were defined for them, the child's task was to add to and fine tune incompletely developed vocabulary- meaning associations, a situation mirroring much of lexical development. (See No_,'man, 1982, for differentiation of accretion/fine tuning situations from learning of com- pletely new material.)

The hypothesis that responding to reiterative questions might affect preschoolers' definition recall relative to simple restatements followed from several experimental demonstrations that questioning improves children's learning (see Pressley & Forrest-Pressley, 1985, for a review; Ross & Balzer, 1975; Ross & Killey, 1977). For instance, preschoolers' incidental learning of simple paired associates (e.g., soap- jacket) is enhanced if the pairmates are em- bedded in a meaningful sentence (verbal elaboration; Rohwer, 1973), such as, "The soap is hiding in the jacket." More relevant here, additional learning gains occur when

verbal elaborations are posed in the form of questions requiring a response from the child (Buium & Turnure, 1977; Turnure, Buium, & Thurlow, 1976), such as, "Why is the soap in the jacket?" (Hereafter, this out- come is referred to as the "interrogative effect.")

The previous research on paired- associate elaboration initially seemed relevant since both paired-associate elaborations and picture-dictionary definitions consist of simple prose with elements that must be linked together, pairmates in the former and defined objects and their attributes in the latter. The interrogative effect with preschoolers, however, was obtained under incidental learning instructions, whereas the problem studied here involved intentional learning. This is an important distinction, since Pressley and Bryant (1982) demonstrated with slightly older children (5 to 6 years of age) that the interrogative effect occurs in incidental situations, but not when learning is intentional. Grade-school children given sentence elaborations under an intentional set continue to process until linkages are as extensively elaborated and as rich as those generated by learners responding to questions (Pressley & Bryant, 1982, experiments 2 and 3).

Thus, a preliminary experiment was conducted to determine if the interrogative effect would be obtained with preschoolers learning simple paired associates under an intentional set. All preschoolers in the pilot study studied 18 paired associates. Partici- pants either repeated simple verbal elaborations or responded to verbal elaborations posed as questions. The interrogative effect on memory was not obtained, with verbal elaboration subjects recalling 59% of the pairings and interrogative subjects recalling 63%, a nonsignificant difference, t This result suggested that having preschoolers answer questions about definitions probably would not produce simple, across-the-

tProcedures were identical to the ones used in the corresponding conditions of Pressley and Bryant (1982) except that the number of paired associates on the to- be-learned list was reduced to 18. There were 20 subjects per condition in this pilot experiment, t (38) = .072. ~ > .80 for detecting a 0.80 S.D. effect, p "< .05 (Cohen, 1977).

ENRICHING CHILDREN~ RECALL 45

board facilitation of the linkage between vocabulary and attributes (i.e., questioning might not increase recall of the definition exactly as stated, given the vocabulary item at testing). It seemed more likely that the gxeater depth of processing due to interrogation would be manifested more subtly, in the form of paraphrases and inferences above and beyond what was stated ex- plicitly in the definition at study (e.g., Anderson & Biddle, 1975). This integrative potential of interrogation was the main motivation for the questioning manipula- tion in the study reported here.

Further pilot testing suggested that children's responses to questions were not very elaborated when definitions were accompanied by very simple pictures. Based on previous research establishing that more complex pictures more certainly result in elaborative and integrative processing than do simpler pictures (e.g., Levie & Lentz, 1982; Levin, Bender, & Pressley, 1979; Pressley, Pigott, & Bryant, 1982), we hypothesized that the effects of the questioning intervention might be moderated by the amount of information contained in the accompanying illustration. Thus, in addition to varying whether children answered questions, in the experiment reported here, type of picture was varied between two levels, either simple or considerably more detailed (i.e., illustrations containing as many of the definition-specified attributes as possible).

METHOD

Sub/ects Participants were 80 preschool-age children (age range from 41 mos to 69 mos; mean age of 54.7 mos) who were enrolled in 14 day care centers and nursery schools serving the metropolitan area of a Canadian city. There were 36 males and 44 females, with children assigned randomly to experimental conditions, except that an equal number of children from each center/school were assigned to each experimental condition.

Materials and Design Four short definitional passages were con- structed, similar to entries in popular com-

mercial children's dictionaries such as Dr. Seuss and Sesame Street. The four definitions were for "hotel," "anchor," "needle," and "parachute." One version of each definition was 28 to 36 words long and was composed of two sentences. This version was the initial presentation of the definition in all conditions. Subjects in the nonquestioning conditions were presented the definitions a second time as a series of four to six sentences. The second presentation to questioned subjects consisted of these same four to six statements transformed to a "why?" question. The definitions, restatements, and the questioned-based versions of the restatements are shown in Table 1.

Each definition was accompanied by a picture of the object. Half of the subjects saw colored 8" x 10" pictures that depicted most or all of the attributes mentioned in the definition; half of the subjects viewed a nonelaborated picture of the object, that is, a picture not nearly so detailed. Black- and-white line drawing versions of the elaborated and nonelaborated pictures for the item "needle" are presented in Figure 1.

Procedure Each child was seen in a quiet area of their school or day care center. The child sat fac- ing an adult female experimenter at a child-size table. This first experimenter ad- ministered the task to the children and tape recorded the children's responses. The par- ticipant was then introduced to a second adult female and told that this timer/ observer was a friend who would listen to the memory game.

Children in the questioned conditions were told that they were going to play a memory game in which the experimenter would tell them some things about words as well as ask them questions about the vocabulary. They were told that they would be asked to remember the meanings of these items at the end of the game. Presentation of each word began by showing the subject a picture of the referent object and saying, "This is a ." (The picture remained in view for the entire time that the child heard information about the particular item.) The experimenter then read the pas- sage to the child one time, followed by re-

46 ECTJ SPRJNG1987

TABLE 1 Definitions, Restatements of Definitions, and Restatements as Questions

HOTEL Definition: A hotel is a building with many rooms. People pay for a bedroom and food at the hotel when they are traveling or away from home. Restatement of Definition: A hotel has many rooms. People go to a hotel when they are traveling or away from home. People pay to use a bedroom at a hotel. A hotel has bedrooms and food. Restatement as Questions: Why does a hotel have many rooms? Why do peele go to a hotel when they are traveling or away from home? Why do people have to pay to use a bedroom at a hotel? Why does a hotel have bedrooms and food?

NEEDLE Definition: A needle is a long thin tool used for sewing with thread. A needle has a small hole at one end and a sharp point at the other. Restatement of Definition: A needle has a small hole at one end. A needle has a sharp point at the other end. You use a needle for sewing. A needle is a long, thin tool. Restatement as Questions: Why does a needle have a small hole at one end? Why does a needle have a sharp point at the other end? Why should you use a needle for sewing? Why is a needle a long, thin tool?

FIGURE 1 Elaborated and nonelaborated pictures that accompanied the definition of needle.

(a) Nonelaborated Line

Drawing

ANCHOR Defintion: An anchor is a heavy hook which is attached to a ship with a long chain. It digs into the bottom of the sea and stops the ship from moving. Restatement of Definition: An anchor is a heavy hook. An anchor is attached to a shop with a long chain. An anchor digs into the bottom of the sea. An anchor stops the ship from moving. Restatement as Questions: Why is an anchor a heavy hook? Why is an anchor attached to a ship with a long chain? Why does an anchor dig into the bottom of the sea? Why does the anchor stop the ship from moving?

PARACHUTE Definition: A parachute is a large piece of strong cloth which is fastened to a person who is going to jump from an airplane. It opens like an umbrella and brings the person slowly down to the ground. RestatementofDefinition: A parachute is made of a large piece of cloth. A parachute is made of a strong piece of cloth. A parachute is fastened to a person who is going to jump from an airplane. A parachute opens like an umbrella. A parachute brings a person slowly down to the ground. Restatement as Questions: Why do you think a parachute is made of a large piece of cloth? Why do you think a parachute is made of a strong piece of cloth? Why is a parachute fastened to a person who is going to jump from an airplane? Why does a parachute open like an umbrella? Why does a parachute bring a person down to the ground?

(b) Elaborated line Dr~ng

ENRICHING CHILDREN'S RECALL 47

s ta tement in the form of questions. Throughout the presentation the experimenter pointed to features in the pictures (both in the elaborated and the nonelaborated conditions) as they were mentioned. No time limit was set for answering questions, but a question was repeated after a long pause (i.e., 15 to 20 secs). No feedback about the adequacy of answers was provided. The cycle of definition presentation and restatement as questions was repeated for each of the four definitions.

The procedures in the nonquestioned conditioned were identical to those in the questioned conditions through the initial presentation of the definition. The restatements in the nonquestioned conditions were in the form of declarative sentences, with no responses required on the part of the subjects.

Children were grouped in blocks of four, with one child of the block seen at a time. The members of a block were close in age (i.e., they were matched on age within each day care center), and one child from each block was assigned randomly to each of the four conditions. The children in the two questioning conditions were always seen first, with the amount of time taken to answer each question carefully timed and rep- etitions of questions (when necessary) carefully noted. The blockrnate who served in the nonquestioned condition viewing the same type of picture was presented materials following the timing determined by the questioned subject (i.e., questioned/elaborated picture subjects were paired with nonquestioned/elaborated picture subjects and questioned/nonelaborated picture subjects were paired with nonquest ioned/nonelaborated picture participants). If a questioned subject took 10 secs to answer a question, the nonquestioned subject heard the same information in a declarative statement with a pause equal to 10 secs. If a question was repeated to the questioned subject, the paired, nonquestioned subject heard the corresponding declarative sentence at the same point in time as the question was re- presented.

After presentation of all four definitions, subjects were asked to recall the meanings of each one. The experimenter used four probe questions for each item, presented in

the following order:.

"What is a ?"

"What do you know about a _ _ ~"

"What did I tell you about _ _ ?

"Tell me everything you know about a

The definitions were tested in a different random order for each subject.

RESULTS

Each definition was broken into its component attributes, with a total of 35 attributes across four definitions. Total recall consisted of strict recall (i.e., attributes exactly as stated in the definitions at presentation) plus paraphrased recall (i.e., nonverbatim statements synonymous with attributes stated in the definition). In addition to re- porting information actually present in the definitions, children included congruous information in their recall (i.e., content about the defined concept that was correct al- though not stated in the definition nor depicted in the accompanying pictures). For example, congruous answers for needle included (a) can poke a finger with it and it could bleed, (b) can sew a shirt with it, (c) can put it in the sewing machine, and (d) need it to help you sew clothes. Some recall protocols also included information that was irrelevant to the definition (i.e., incongruent recall). Two adult raters achieved 92% agreement in scoring the data into the total recall (strict and paraphrased), congruent recall, and incongruent recall categories.

Recall of Definitions

Total recall is displayed in Figure 2, and is broken down into strict and paraphrased recall. There was a main effect for picture type, F (1,76) = 6.63, p < .01 (MS, = 35.91). Questioning did not have a significant effect on total recall, F (1,76) = 0.06, p > .70. The interaction between picture type and questioning conditions was negligible as well, F (1,76) = 0.06, p > .70. Visual inspection of Figure 2 suggested that the percentage of total recall that was paraphrased was higher when subjects were questioned. The percentage recall paraphrased was calculated

48 ECTJ SPRING1987

FIGURE 2 Number of attribu tes recalled as a function of experimental condition. Total recall (maximum of 35) = strict recall + paraphrased recall.

mmmmmmm

l l l l l l l l

mmmmmmmn

CONDITION

QUESTIONED/ ELABORATED

NONQUESTIONED/ ELABORATED

QUESTIONED/ NONELABORATED

NONQUESTIONED/ NONELABORATED

i n n

|am

"i"

0 2 4 6 0 l0 12

NUMBER OF ATTRIBUTES

I : P.k, Jl3~HJ~S~ED 1 STRICT

for each subject and analyzed.2 Quest ioned subjects paraphrased recall more than did nonquest ioned subjects, F (1,72) = 14.49. p < .001 (MS, = 46.04). There was no effect of picture type in this analysis, F (1,72) = 0.03, p > .86, nor was the picture type x ques- t ioning/nonquest ioning interaction significant, F (1,72) = 0.26, p > .61.

Congruent Recall

All subject-provided definit ions were examined to determine which ones had any congruent information in them. If no congruent information occurred in a subject 's definition, a congruent recall score of zero was ass igned for that response. Responses containing congruent information were scaled by each of seven judges on a scale of one to seven, using a variant of the method of suc- cessive categories (Guilford, 1954). Judg- ments were made separately on each of the four vocabu la ry i tems, wi th j udges instructed to rate on the basis on quanti ty and quality of congruent responses. For each v o c a b u l a r y w o r d , each j u d g e was instructed to assign at least one response the

2When total recall is equal to zero, the quantity percentage recall paraphrased is mathematically unde- fined. Thus, four subjects were dropped in this analysis.

lowest rating of one, and at least one the h ighest rat ing of seven. The final score given to a response was the average scale value of the seven judges.

An example of a response to "hote l" that received a score of seven is the following:

It's a building. It has a lot of people in it. There is a lot of chairs, tables, beds, lights, and rooms. It has stairs. There's locks on the doors. Maybe there's lots of cars, and maybe there's airplanes. Somebody's not home and go there.

The following definition of a hotel received a congruent information score of four:

A place where people can go to sleep and eat. You have to pay for your room and your food. Lots of people can go in. It has lots of windows.

This definition earned a one for congruent information:

Has lots of bedrooms. You need a bed to sleep in. Bigger than their home.

A subject 's congruent recall score was the average of the scaled scores for the four de f in i t i ons . For e x a m p l e , one sub j ec t provided two definitions that contained no congruent information, a third definition scaled 3.14, and the fourth, 3.57. That subject's congruent recall was 1.68 [i.e., (0 + 0 + 3.14 + 3.57)/4]. The range of obtained congruent recall scores was 0.00 to 4.65. The

ENRICHING CHILDREN'S RECALL 49

FIGURE 3 Subjects' mean congruent and incongruent recall levels per definition as a function of experimental condition.

C O N D I T I O N

Q El

NONQ E

Ql

NONEI

NONQ NONEI

mm

0 I 2 MEAN JUDAS" RATII~

�9 CON6RU(NT I~CALL

l INCON6RUEI~T RECALL

mean congruent recall score for each condition is depicted in Figure 3. The presentation of elaborated pictures resulted in more congruent recall than the presentation of the less complex pictures, F (1,76) = 4.59, p < .035 (MS, = 1.304). The trend produced by questioning was not significant, F (1,76) = 1.73, p < .19, nor was the interaction between the type of picture and questioning variables, F (1,76) = 0.04, p < .85.

The correlation between total recall and congruent recall was .26 in the questioned/ elaborated-picture condition, - .09 in the quesfioned/nonelaborated picture condition, - .08 in the nonquestioned/elaborated picture condition, and - .31 in the nonques- fioned/nonelaborated picture condition. None of these correlations was significant at the p < .05 level (cutoff value, r = .44).

Incongruent Recall

Incongruent recall was scaled by the same seven judges who scaled the congruent information. Each of the four vocabulary items was scaled separately. All subject- recalled definitions were examined to discriminate those that contained some incongruent information from those that contained none. Definitions with no incongruent information were scored zero. Each response containing some incongruent in-

formation was placed on a scale of one (few errors) to seven (many errors) by the seven judges. Judges were instructed that for each of the four definitions, at least one response had to be scaled 1 and one had to be scaled 7. The average of the seven judges' ratings was the subject's incongruent recall score for the item. A subject's average incongruent recall score was the mean of her/his incongruent recall scores for each of the four definitions. The lowest average subject incongruent recall score was 0.00 and the highest was 6.65. See Figure 3 for depiction of the condition means on the subjects' average incongruent recall data. There were no significant effects in a 2 x 2 ANOVA conducted on these data, largest F (1,76) = 0.14, p > .70 (MS e = 15.376).

DISCUSSION

Learning the four definitions was difficult for the participants in this experiment, as evident in the generally low recall in all conditions of the study (mean recall ranged from 21% to 34%). We were not particularly surprised by this aspect of the data, because low recall is commonly reported when young children are the learners (e.g., Flavell, 1970). These performance levels provide additional validation for claims that

50 ECTJ SPRING1987

children's acquisition of vocabulary meanings is a challenging task (e.g., Nagy & An- derson, 1984; Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, in press). More central to the goals of this investigation, however, the effects of interrogation and questioning proved to be quite intricate.

Prior to this experiment it was known that young children can respond to questions, even ill-formed ones (Hughes & Grieve, 1983), and that illustrations in children's texts vary enormously in amount of detail (Levie & Lentz, 1982). Based on previous outcomes (e.g., Levin, Bender, & Pressley, 1979), we assumed that elaborated illustrations would produce better learning than nonelaborated pictures, and that trans- pired. We were also interested in whether questioning would affect preschoolers' encoding of simple definitions, whether there would be interactions between questioning and picture manipulations, and whether picture elaboration and questioning might affect aspects of learning other than simply the amount remembered.

Consistent with the results of the two preliminary experiments, the total recall of questioned subjects did not differ signifi- cantly from the total recall of nonquestioned subjects. Questioning, nonetheless, did affect coding of the definitions. The performance of questioned subjects was qualita- tively different from that of nonquestioned subjects. Specifically, questioned subjects were less likely to recall the exact wording of the text, consistent with the hypothesis that questioning would produce more extensive processing of the definitions (e.g., Ander- son & Biddle, 1975; Lehnert, Robertson, & Black, 1984; Turnure, Buium & Thurlow, 1976).

The elaborated pictures probably also produced deeper processing than did the nonelaborated illustrations, for subjects who viewed elaborated pictures were more likely to recall congruent information at testing (i.e., consistent content not stated in definitions nor depicted in illustrations). We emphasize that two alternative expla- nations of greater inferential recall in the elaborated picture conditions can be dis- qualified based on data reported here.

First, greater congruent recall could have been a byproduct of greater encoding and

recall of definitions as stated in the elaborated picture conditions. Better learning of the text as stated could have provided greater grist in these conditions for inferential processing during storage and retrieval. This alternative explanation loses credit- ability, however, when the low correlations between total recall and recall of congruent information are considered, for high correlations would have been expected if congruent recall were due only to better encoding of the definitions as stated. Second, increased congruent recall in the elaborated- picture conditions could have been due to children talking more during testing in those conditions. If that were the case, then incongruent recall should have been higher in those cells than in others. In fact, incongruent recall was low in all conditions. The lack of supporting evidence for these alternative mechanisms fuels the argument that the increased congruent recall in the elaborated picture conditions occurred because elaborated pictures lead preschoolers to go "beyond the information given" (Bruner, 1957) more certainly than did the less detailed pictures.

We note in dosing that when all aspects of recall are considered, the presentation combination with the most to recommend for it was the questioned/elaborated picture condition. (Taylor & Turnure, 1979, reached a similar conclusion about adjuncts when retarded children are learning materials with an associative component.) Recall in this condition was not just rote, but included rephrasings and inferences about the defined concept. The performance in this condition makes clear that preschool children's memory of a definition can be made richer, with pictorial and interrogative variables making unique contributions to recall.

This research was submitted by the first author in parthal fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Psychology at the Univer- sity of Western Ontario. The work was financially sup- ported by a grant to the second author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. James E. Turnure's participation occurred in part as a sabbatical from the University of Minnesota to the Uni- versity of Western Ontario. Reprint requests should be sent to Michael Pressley, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2.

ENRICHING CHILDREN3 RECALL 51

REFERENCES

Ahlfors, G. (1980). Learning word meanings: A comparison of three instructional procedures (Doctoral dissertation, University of Min- nesota, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional, 40, 5803A. (University Microfilms No. 8O-11754)

Anderson, R. C., & Biddle, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press.

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1979). Vocabu- lary knowledge and reading (Reading Ed. Rep. No. 11). Urbana-Champaign: University of U- linois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 470)

Baddeley, A. D. (1976). The psychology of memory. New York: Basic Books.

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506- 521.

Botzum, W. A. (1951). A factorial study of reason- ing and closure factors. Psychometrica, 16, 361-386.

Brunet, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. In H. Gruber et al., Contemporary approaches to wgnition. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press.

Buium, N., & Turnure, J. E. (1977). A cross- cultural study of verbal elaboration productivity and memory in young children. Child Development, 48, 296-300.

Clark, N. L. (1972). Hierarchical structure of win- prehension skills (2 vols.). Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: A.C.E.R.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Crist, R. L., & Petrone, J. M. (1977). Learning concepts from contexts and definitions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 9, 301-303.

Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading, Psychometrica, 9, 185- 197.

Davis, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 499- 545.

Flavell, J. H. (1970). Developmental studies of mediated memory. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsett (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press.

Gipe, J. (1979). Investigating techniques for teaching word meaning. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 624-644.

Gipe J. (1981, April). Investigation of techniques for teaching new word meanings. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educa- tional Research Association, Los Angeles.

Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hare, S. Z. (1976). An investigation of the effectiveness of three methods of teaching reading vocabulary (Doctoral di~ssertation, University of South Carolina, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 7185A.

Hayward, L. (1980). The Sesame Street Dictionary. New York: Random House.

Hughes, M., & Grieve, R. (1983). On asking children bizarre questions. In M. Donaldson, R. Grieve, & C. Pratt (Eds.), Early childhood development and education. Oxford, England: Basil BlackweU.

Jenkins, J. R., & Dixon, R. (1984). Vocabulary learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 237-260.

Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

Kail, R. V., Jr., & Hagen, J. W. (Eds.). (1977). Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Ertbaum & Associates.

Lehnert, W. G., Robertson, S. P., & Black, J. B. (1984). Memory interactions during questioning. In H. Mahdi, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text. Hills- dale, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates.

Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology journal, 30, 195- 232.

Levin, J. R., Bender, B. G., & Pressley, M. (1979). Pictures, imagery, and children's recall of central versus peripheral sentence information. Educational Communication and Technology Jour- nal, 27, 89-95.

Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Weschsler's measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

McDaniel, M. A., & Pressley, M. (1984). Put- ring the keyword method in context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 598/609.

McDaniel, M. A., & Tillman, V. P. (1985). The keyword method versus learning from context: Where's the link? Manuscript submitted for pub- Ecation, Department of Psychology, Univer- sity of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 3-16.

Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253-279.

Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How

52 ECTJ SPRING1987

many words are there in printed school En- glish? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330.

Norman, D. A. (1982). Learning and memory. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.

Pressley, M., & Bryant, S. L. (1982). Does answering questions really promote associative learning? Child Development, 53, 1258-1267.

Pressley, M., & Forrest-Pressley, D. (1985). Questions and children's cognitive processing. In A. C. Graesser & J. B. Black (Eds.), The psychology of questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eflbaum Associates.

Pressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (Eds.) (1983a). Cogni- tive strategy research: Educational applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pressley, M., & Levin, J. R. (Eds.) (1983b). Cogni- tive strategy research: Psychological foundations. New York: Springer-Veflag.

Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (in press). In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Miller, G. E. (1982). The keyword method compared to alternative vocabulary learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 50-60.

Pressley, M., Pigott, S., & Bryant, S. L. (1982). Picture content and preschoolers' learning from sentences. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 151-161.

Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1973). Elaboration and learning in childhood and adolescence. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.

Ross, H. S., & Balzer, R. H. (1975). Determinants and consequences of children's questions. Child Development, 46, 536-549.

Ross, H. S., & Killey, J. C. (1977). The effect of questioning on retention. Child Development, 48, 312-314.

Sternberg, R. J., & PoweU, J. S. (1983). Com- prehending verbal comprehension. American Psychologist, 38, 878-893.

Taylor, A. M., & Turnure, J. E. (1979). Imagery and verbal elaboration with retarded children: Effects on learning and memory. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency: Psychological theory and research (pp. 659--697). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tumure, J. E., Bulum, N., & Thurlow, M. (1976). The effectiveness of interrogatives for prompting verbal elaboration productivity in young children. Child Development, 47, 851-855.

In Forthcoming Issues

Comparison of Computer Assisted Instruction and Print Drill Performance: A Research Note Donald L. Campbell, Dennis L. Peck, Charles J. Horn, and Robert K. Leigh

The Effects of Orienting Activities and Cognitive Processing Time on Factual and Inferential Learning Michael J. Hannafin, Timo~y L_ Phillips, Lloyd P. Rieber, and Casey Garhart

Is Systematic Telephone Tutoring More Effective for Some Correspondence Students Than for Others? An Exploratory Study Gordon Thompson and Alan B. Knox

enriching children's recall of picture-dictionary definitions with interrogation and elaborated...

Documents