Subjects reconstructed two sets of scrambled discourse of 26 sentences each. Subjects were either given no feedback or limited feedback as confirmation-disconfirmation, with retrieval either immediate or delayed one week. Memory was measured as recall of idea units and recognition of original sentences from paraphrases. Concordance was measured by relationship to the original sentence order. Recall was not related to any of the independent variables, but recognition was related to content. The data suggest a modest contribution of feedback to concordance, but this did not lead to differences in achievement. The findings replicate previous research which suggests that prior knowledge and local cues for syntax and coherence may diminish the contributions of feedback.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. R.RederL. M.An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In CermakL. S.CraikF. I. M. (Eds.), Levels of processing human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1979. Pp. 385–404.
2.
AndersonR. C.FaustG. W.Educational psychology: The science of instruction and learning. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1973.
3.
AndersonR. C.KulhavyR. W.AndreT.Feedback procedures in programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 148–156.
4.
BovairS.KierasD. E.A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose. Technical Report No. 8, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1981.
5.
BrooksL. W.DansereauD. F.Effects of structural schema training and text organization on expository prose processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 12, 811–820.
6.
ClarkH. H.The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 335–359.
7.
DansereauD. R.EvansS. H.WrightA. D.LongG.AtkinsonT.Factors related to developing instructional information sequences: Phase I. AFHRL TR73–51(1), Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, 1973.
8.
FermiL.Success. In MartinG. (Ed.), Great essays in science. New York: Washington Square Press, 1957. Pp. 326–338.
9.
GagneR. M.BriggsL. J.Principles of instructional design. (2nd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1979.
10.
GelmanD. A.Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60, 503–508.
11.
GetsieR.LangerP.GlassV. G.Meta-analysis of the effects of type and combination of feedback on children's discrimination learning. Review of Educational Research, 1985, 55, 9–22.
12.
KeenanV.LangerP.Medosch-SchonbeckC.Delayed retrieval following text synthesis with varied feedback. Technical Report No. 136, Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1985.
13.
KintschW.van DijkT. A.Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363–394.
14.
KulhavyR. W.Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47, 211–232.
15.
KulhavyR. W.ParsonsJ. A.Learning-criterion error presentation in text materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 81–86.
16.
KulhavyR. W.YekovichF. R.DyerU. W.Feedback and response confidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 68, 522–528.
17.
LangerP.KeenanV.Medosch-SchonbeckC.A text syntheses approach to feedback. Psychological Reports, 1985, 57, 599–610.
18.
LorchR. F.LorchE. P.Topic structure representation and text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1985, 77, 137–148.
19.
MelchingW. H.Programmed instruction under a feedback schedule. National Society for Programmed Instruction Journal, 1966, 5, 14–15.
20.
MeyerB. J. F.FreedleD. O.The role of elaboration in comprehension and retention of prose. American Educaitonal Research Journal, 1984, 21, 121–144.
21.
RederL. M.The role of elaboration in the comprehension and retention of prose: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 1980, 50, 5–53.
22.
SchultzC. B.DiVestaF. J.Effects on passage organization and note taking on the selection of clustering strategies on the recall of textual materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 63, 244–252.
23.
SidmanM.Tactics in scientific research. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
24.
SullivanH. J.SchutzR. E.BakerR. L.Effects of intrinsic contingencies to learner performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58, 165–169.
25.
TulvingE.Episodic and semantic memory. In TulvingE.DonaldsonW. (Eds.), Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Pp. 381–403.
