Sixth grade pupils from two distinct achievement levels read passages with or without adjunct questions. These adjunct questions were described as Repetition questions as they were directly related to specific information in the passage. A posttest repeated these adjunct questions, an equal number of ‘Incidental’ repetition questions, and a set of Integration questions requiring some combination of points or interpretation of material. High achievement level pupils performed significantly better than low achievement level pupils irrespective of treatments. The presence or absence of adjunct questions during instruction only had a significant effect on posttest performance with low achievement level pupils.
References
1.
AllenD. I.Some effects of advance organizers and level of question on the learning and retention of written social studies method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 333–339.
2.
AndersonR. C.How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 1972, 42, 145–170.
3.
BrachtG. H.Experimental factors related to aptitude-treatment interaction. Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, 627–645.
4.
BrachtG. H.GlassG. V.The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 1968, 5, 437–474.
5.
BruningR. H.Effects of review and testlike events within the learning of prose materialsJournal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 59, 16–19.
6.
CronbachL. J.How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In GagnéR. M. (Ed.) Learning and Individual Differences. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Books, 1967, 23–39.
7.
FraseL. T.Effect of question location, pacing, and mode upon retention of prose material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 59, 244–249.
8.
FraseL. T.Effect of incentive variables and type of adjunct question upon text learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 371–375.
9.
FraseL. T.PatrickE.SchumerH.Effect of question position and frequency upon learning from text under different levels of incentive. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 52–56.
10.
GlaserR.Some implications of previous work on learning and individual differences. In GagnéR. M. (Ed.) Learning and Individual Differences. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Books, 1967, 1–18.
11.
GustafsonH. W.TooleD. L.Effects of adjunct questions, pretesting, and degree of student supervision on learning from an instructional text. Journal of Experimental Education, 1970, 39, 53–58.
12.
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, 193–221.
13.
RothkopfE. Z.Learning from written material: An exploration of the control of inspection behaviour by test-like events. American Educational Research Journal, 1966, 3, 241–250.
14.
RothkopfE. Z.The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, 325–336.
15.
WattsG. H.The “arousal” effect of adjunct questions on recall from prose materials. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1973, 25, 81–87.
16.
WattsG. H.AndersonR. C.Effects of three types of inserted questions on learning from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 82, 387–394.
