Efficacy of the Pause Procedure for Enhancing Learning Disabled and Nondisabled College Students' Long- and Short-Term Recall of Facts Presented through Lecture
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 1990
Efficacy of the Pause Procedure for Enhancing Learning Disabled and Nondisabled College Students' Long- and Short-Term Recall of Facts Presented through Lecture
Despite growing numbers of learning disabled students in college classes, few empirically validated strategies for use by faculty when lecturing these students have appeared in the professional literature. The effect of a pausing procedure (three 2-minute pauses spaced at logical breaks during videotaped lectures) on students' performance of three dependent variables (immediate free recall of facts, long-term free recall of facts, and performance on objective tests) was determined using analysis of variance with repeated measures and follow-up t-tests. Performances of two mixed groups of learning disabled (LD) (n = 15) and nondisabled (ND) (n = 15) students were compared after lectures both without pauses and with pauses. Findings indicate the pause procedure is effective for enhancing student performance on immediate free-recall and objective test measures. The procedure may also be applicable to a variety of lecture situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanH. S.TaylorL. (1986). An introduction to learning disabilities. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
2.
Clyde-SnyderM. (1982). Criterion and behavioral checklist for adults with specific learning disabilities. Ellensburg: Central Washington University, The Helds Project Series, Appendix A, 25–27.
3.
CronbachL. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
4.
DeckerT. W.PollowayE. A.DeckerB. B. (1985). Help for the LD college student. Academic Therapy, 20, 339–346.
5.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.AlleyG. R.WarnerM. W.ClarkF. L. (1980). An epidemiological study of LD adolescents in secondary schools: Academic self-image and attributions (Research Report No. 14). Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
6.
DiVestaF. J.GrayG. S. (1973). Listening and note taking: Immediate and delayed recall as functions of variations in thematic continuity, note taking, and length of listening-review intervals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 278–287.
7.
DiVestaF. J.SmithD. A. (1979). The pausing principle: Increasing the efficiency of memory for ongoing events. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 288–296.
8.
GajarA. H. (1986). Programming for the learning disabled: A program development and service delivery guide for university service providers, diagnosticians, tutors, counselors and learning disabled students. Columbus, OH: AHSSPPE.
9.
GajarA. H.MurphyJ. P.HuntF. M. (1982). A university program for learning disabled students. Reading Improvement, 19 (4).
10.
HEATH Resource Center. (1987). Learning disabled adults in postsecondary education (Contract No. 400–77–0857). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
11.
HoyD.GreggN. (1986). Learning disabled students: An emerging population on college campuses. The Journal of College Admissions, 112, 10–14.
12.
IngramC. F.DettenmaierL. (1987). LD college students and reading problems. Academic Therapy, 22, 513–518.
13.
JarrowJ. E. (1987). Integration of individuals with disabilities in higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 5 (2), 38–57.
14.
KahnM. S. (1980). Learning problems of the secondary and junior college learning disabled student: Suggested remedies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13 (4), 40–44.
15.
MatthewsP. R.AndersonD. W.SkolnickB. D. (1987). Faculty attitude toward accommodations for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3, 46–52.
16.
PraterG.MinnerS. (1986). Factors inhibiting the performance of learning-disabled students in postsecondary settings. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 2, 273–277.
17.
PutnamM. L. (1984). Postsecondary education for learning disabled students: A review of the literature. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (1), 68–75.
18.
RoweM. B. (1976). The pausing principle — Two invitations to inquiry. Research on College Science Teaching, 5, 258–259.
19.
RoweM. B. (1980). Pausing principles and their effects on reasoning in science. New Directions in Community Colleges, 31, 27–34.
20.
RoweM. B. (1983). Getting chemistry off the killer course list. Journal of Chemical Education, 60, 954–956.
21.
RuhlK. L.HughesC. A.SchlossP. J. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14–18.
22.
SkrticT. M.DeshlerD. D. (1981). Instructional accessibility for post-secondary learning disabled adults. Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
23.
ShawS. F.NorlanderK. A. (1986). The special educator's role in training personnel to provide assistance to college students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 77–81.
24.
UglandR.DuaneG. (1976). Serving students with special learning disabilities in higher education — A demonstration project at three Minnesota community colleges. Bloomington, MN: Normandale Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 135 434).
25.
WaughN. C.NormanD. A. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review, 72, 89–104.
