This study investigated the effects of sentence imagery (bizarre or plausible) and orienting instructions (semantic or imagery processing) on adult learning disabled readers' word recall. Memory for underlined nouns within a sentence was measured under immediate and delayed (one-week) recall conditions. In the immediate recall condition, a cued recall task yielded better word retrieval for common than for bizarre sentences. Disabled readers' word recall for both sentence types was poorer during imagery than semantic- processing instructions. Ability groups were comparable in word recall during the semantic-processing instructions. For the long-term interval, there were no reliable free recall effects for sentence type or orienting instruction. Regardless of instructional conditions, however, skilled readers recalled and clustered more items than disabled readers. Poor performance of both ability groups during the longterm memory phase was consistent with research indicating that bizarre imagery does not improve memory accuracy. Support was not found for the hypothesis that bizarre imagery serves as an effective memory aid or that disabled readers benefit from selfgenerated imagery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BorkowskiJ.JohnstonM.B., & ReidM.K. (1986). Metacognition, motivation and controlled performance. In
2.
CeciS.J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social and neuro-psychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp.147–173). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BowerG.H. (1970). Imagery as a relational organizer inassociative learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and VerbalBehavior, 9, 529–533.
4.
BowerG.H. (1972). Mental imagery and associative learn-ing. In GreggL.W. (Ed.), Cognition in learning and memory.New York: W. Norton W.
5.
CermakL.S. (1975). Improving your memory.New York: W. Norton W.
CraikF.I., & SimonE. (1980). Age differences in memory:The roles of attention and depth of processing. In PoonL.. (Eds.), New directions in memory and aging (pp.95–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
DallegoM., & MoelyB. (1980). Free recall in boys of nor-mal and poor reading levels as a function of task manipula-tion. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 62–78.
9.
EysenckMW. (1979). Depth, elaboration and distinctive-ness. In CermakL.S. & CraikF.I.M. (Eds.), Levels of pro-cessing in human memory.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
FletcherJ.M. (1985). Memory for verbal and nonverbalstimuli in learning disability subgroups: Analysis of selec-tive reminding. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 244–259.
11.
GelzheiserL.M. (1984). Generalization from categoricalmemory tasks to prose by learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,1128-1138.
12.
HallJ., & HumphreysM.S. (1982). Research on specificlearning disabilities: Deficits and remediation. TopicsinLearning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 68–78.
13.
HuntR., & EinsteinG. (1982). Relational and item-specificinformation in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Ver-bal Behavior, 20, 497–514.
14.
HuntR.R., & MitchellD.B. (1978). Specificity in nonseman-tic orienting tasks and distinctive memory traces. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 121–135.
15.
JacobyL.L., & CraikF.I.M. (1979). Effects of elaborationof processing at encoding and retrieval: Trace distinctive-ness and recovery of initial context. In CermakL.S. & CraikF.I.M. (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
KirkR.E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for thebehavioral sciences.Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
17.
KrollN.E.SchepelerE.M., & AnginK.T. (1986). Bizarreimagery: The misremembered mnemonics. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 40–51.
18.
LevinJ.R. (1981). On functions of pictures in prose. In F.PirozzoloJ. & M.WittrockC. (Eds.), Neuropsychological andcognitive processes in reading (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic Press.
19.
LorayneH.,&LucasJ. (1974). The memory book.New York: Ballatine.
20.
LuriaA.R. (1968). Themind of a mnemonist.New York: Basic Books.
21.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E., & LevinJ.R. (1985a). Maximizing what exceptional students can learn: A review of research on the keyword method and related mnemonic techniques. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 39–45.
22.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E., & LevinJ.R. (1985b). Mnemonic strategy instruction with learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 94-'100.
23.
McDanielM.A., & EinsteinG.O. (1986). Bizarre imagery as an effective memory aid: The importance of distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 54–65.
MerryR., & GrahamN.C. (1978). Imagery bizarreness in children's recall of sentences. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 315–321.
26.
PaivioA. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes.New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
27.
PressleyM., & LevinJ.R. (1986). Elaborative learning strategies for the inefficient learner. In CeciS.J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 175–207). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
RoenkerD.L.ThompsonL., & BrownS.L. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 45–48.
29.
SenterR.J., & HoffmanR.R. (1976). Bizarreness as a nonessential variable in mnemonic imagery: A confirmation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 163–164.
30.
SwansonH.L. (1984). Effects of cognitive effort and word distinctiveness on learning disabled and nondisabled readers’ recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 894-908.
31.
SwansonH.L. (1986a). Do semantic memory deficiencies underlie learning disabled readers’ encoding processes?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 461–488.
32.
SwansonH.L. (1986b). Multiple coding processes in learning disabled and skilled readers. In S.CeciJ. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 203–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
TulvingE., & Thomson (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.
34.
WebberS.M., & MarshallP.H. (1978). Bizarreness effects in imagery as a function of processing level and delay. Journal of Mental Imagery, 2, 291–300.
35.
WollenK.A., & CoxS.D. (1981). Sentence cuing and the effectiveness of bizarre imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 386–392.
36.
WordenP.E., & NakamuraGV. (1982). Story comprehension and recall in learning-disabled versus normal college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 633–641.
37.
ZechmeisterE.B., & NybergS.E. (1982). Human memory.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
