Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, G., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 107-116.

Vidal-Abarca, E.;Martunez, G.;Gilabert, R.

2000

Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, G., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 107-116.

geen

The goal of this study was to compare 2 approaches for improving instructional text. The first was based on the procedure created by B. K. Britton and S. Gulgoz (1991) as derived from W. Kintsch and T. A. van Dijk's theory (1978). It emphasized the reduction of the reader's inferential activity. We created a second method that was inspired by theories of narrative comprehension (P. van den Broek, 1990; A. C. Graesser, M. Singer, & T. Trabasso, 1994). We oriented it toward triggering causal inferences in the reader. Alternative versions of an original passage on history were elaborated for each of the 2 methods. Sixty-four 8th graders read either the original passage or one of the revised versions and were tested on memory (i.e., recall) and learning (i.e., inference questions). Only the 2nd procedure produced benefits on inferential learning, though both procedures had a limited effect on recall.

Neither argument overlap nor causal constructionist changes had a clear effect on overall recall. However, the argument overlap version was significantly better than the original passage with respect to delayed recall. Clearly, we can conclude that the two methods of revision produce different effects on recall: whereas causal constructionist changes strenghtened the recall of main events over supporting information, the opposite was true for the argument overlap changes. An explanation for this is that the first sort of change triggers causal antecedent and superordinate goal inferences in the reader's mind.

64

1