Abstract
Four experiments were conducted in order to contrast the levels-of-processing perspective with the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective. Experiment 1 employed a within-groups design to contrast the effects of various types of questions at different positions on subjects' recognition of sentences. The results seemed to support the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective's predictions but were confounded by the form of design. Experiment 2 examined the same questions with a between-groups design, while Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 with the use of a free recall posttest. The results of both Experiments 2 and 3 seemed to support the predictions of the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective and disconfirm the predictions of the levels-of-processing framework. Experiment 4 extended the work to subjects' memory for paragraphs. The results of Experiment 4, however, did not match the pattern observed in Experiments 1–3 and, instead, seemed to bear out the predictions of the levels-of-processing perspective. The results are discussed in terms of the influence of experimental design, choice of study materials, choice of dependent variables, and their interaction.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 215-234 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Journal of Literacy Research |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1985 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Education
- Language and Linguistics
- Linguistics and Language
Cite this
Memory for sentences and prose : Levels-of-processing or transfer-appropriate-processing? / Glover, John A.; Rankin, Joan; Langner, Nancy; Todero, Catherine; Dinnel, Dale.
In: Journal of Literacy Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1985, p. 215-234.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Memory for sentences and prose
T2 - Levels-of-processing or transfer-appropriate-processing?
AU - Glover, John A.
AU - Rankin, Joan
AU - Langner, Nancy
AU - Todero, Catherine
AU - Dinnel, Dale
PY - 1985
Y1 - 1985
N2 - Four experiments were conducted in order to contrast the levels-of-processing perspective with the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective. Experiment 1 employed a within-groups design to contrast the effects of various types of questions at different positions on subjects' recognition of sentences. The results seemed to support the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective's predictions but were confounded by the form of design. Experiment 2 examined the same questions with a between-groups design, while Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 with the use of a free recall posttest. The results of both Experiments 2 and 3 seemed to support the predictions of the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective and disconfirm the predictions of the levels-of-processing framework. Experiment 4 extended the work to subjects' memory for paragraphs. The results of Experiment 4, however, did not match the pattern observed in Experiments 1–3 and, instead, seemed to bear out the predictions of the levels-of-processing perspective. The results are discussed in terms of the influence of experimental design, choice of study materials, choice of dependent variables, and their interaction.
AB - Four experiments were conducted in order to contrast the levels-of-processing perspective with the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective. Experiment 1 employed a within-groups design to contrast the effects of various types of questions at different positions on subjects' recognition of sentences. The results seemed to support the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective's predictions but were confounded by the form of design. Experiment 2 examined the same questions with a between-groups design, while Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 with the use of a free recall posttest. The results of both Experiments 2 and 3 seemed to support the predictions of the transfer-appropriate-processing perspective and disconfirm the predictions of the levels-of-processing framework. Experiment 4 extended the work to subjects' memory for paragraphs. The results of Experiment 4, however, did not match the pattern observed in Experiments 1–3 and, instead, seemed to bear out the predictions of the levels-of-processing perspective. The results are discussed in terms of the influence of experimental design, choice of study materials, choice of dependent variables, and their interaction.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84970302400&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84970302400&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/10862968509547541
DO - 10.1080/10862968509547541
M3 - Article
VL - 17
SP - 215
EP - 234
JO - Journal of Literacy Research
JF - Journal of Literacy Research
SN - 1086-296X
IS - 3
ER -