Carver's recent objections to the concept of mathemagenic activities are analyzed and rejected. Flaws in Carver's arguments, both logical and empirical, are pointed out. The author focuses his comments on Carver's remarks about the relationship between mathemagenic activities and reading time, Carver's conception of current theoretical possibilities and his aesthetic of language.
References
1.
CarverR. P.Brief report: On the danger involved in the use of tests which measure factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1968, 3, 509–512.
2.
CarverR. P.Some unbelievably good results and their implications. American Educational Research Journal, 1970, 7, 285–286.
3.
CarverR. P.Evidence for the invalidity of the Miller-Coleman Readability Scale. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1972, 4, 42–47. (a).
4.
CarverR. P.A critical review of mathemagenic behavior and the effect of questions upon the retention of prose materials. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1972, 4, 93–119. (b).
5.
CattellR. B.A need for alertness to multivariate experimental findings in integrative surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, 55, 253–256.
6.
CooperE. H.PantleA. G.The total time hypothesis in verbal learning. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 68, 221–234.
7.
MillerG. C.ColemanE. B.A set of thirty-six passages calibrated for complexity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 851–854.
8.
NatkinG.StahlerE.The effect of adjunct questions on short and long-term recall. American Educational Research Journal, 1968, 6, 425–432.
9.
RothkopfE. Z.Some conjectures about inspection behavior in learning from written sentences and the response mode problem in programmed self-instruction. Journal of Programmed Instruction, 1963, 2, 31–46.
10.
RothkopfE. Z.Some theoretical and experimental approaches to problems in written instruction. In KrumboltzJ. D. (Ed.) Learning and the educational process. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.
11.
RothkopfE. Z.Learning from written materials: An Exploration of the control of inspection behavior by test-like events. American Educational Research Journal, 1966, 3, 241–249.
12.
RothkopfE. Z.Two scientific approaches to the management of instruction. In GagnéR. M.GephartW. J. (Eds.) Learning research and school subjectsItasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1968, 107–132.
13.
RothkopfE. Z.The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, 325–336.
14.
RothkopfE. Z.Experiments on mathemagenic behavior and the technology of written instruction. In RothkopfE. Z.JohnsonP. E. (Eds.) Verbal learning research and the technology of written instructionNew York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1971, pp. 284–303.
15.
RothkopfE. Z.Individual differences in learning-related processes. Paper read at Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1972. (a).
16.
RothkopfE. Z.Structural text features and the control of processes in learning from written materials. In FreedleR. O.CarrollJ. B. (Eds.) Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledgeWashington: V. H. Winston and Sons, 1972, 315–335. (b).
17.
RothkopfE. Z.Variable adjunct question schedules, interpersonal interaction, and incidental learning from written material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 87–92. (c).
18.
RothkopfE. Z.BisbicosE. E.Selective facilitative effects of interspersed questions on learning from written material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58, 56–61.
19.
RothkopfE. Z.BloomR. D.Effects of interpersonal interaction on the instructional value of adjunct questions in learning from written material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 417–422.
20.
WeaverW. W.Discussion of Professor Neal F. Johnson's paper. In RothkopfE. Z.JohnsonP. E. (Eds.) Verbal learning research and the technology of written instructionNew York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1971, 139–152.
