2 experiments are reported. The first compared the accuracy of written recall for three methods of presentation: simple oral, visual equal-time, and dual. For sequence measures, retention improved in the order presented above. Exp. 2 compared the above three methods of presentation for explicated and non-explicated versions of the learning material. Similar findings were obtained on relative retention under the three methods of presentation. In general, retention was also superior for the explicated version of the learning material.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartlettF. C.Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer. Press, 1932.
2.
KingD. J.On the accuracy of written recall: a scaling and factor analytic study. Psychological Record, 1960, 10, 113–122.
3.
KingD. J.Contextual constraint and retroaction in verbal material. Journal of General Psychology, 1966, 75, 39–63.
4.
KingD. J.The retention of prose and poetry as a function of modes of presentation and recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, in press.
5.
KingD. J.RussellG. W.A comparison of rote and meaningful learning of connected meaningful material. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 478–483.
