The role of imagery in incidental learning of educable retarded and normal children

JOURNAL

The

OF EXPERIMENTAL

Role

of

CHILD

Imagery Retarded

A. DAXIEL University

PSYCHOMGY

14, 303-312

(1972)

in Incidental

Learning

and

Children1

Normal

YARMEY’

AND NORMA

of Guelph,

Guelph,

Oniario.

of Educable

V. BOWE~N Canada

Forty-five educable retarded and 45 normal children were given an orientation task in which noun- and picture-paired associates were presented once or four times under one of three instructional conditions: intentional imagery, incidental imagery, or intentional control (no imagery). An immediate associative recall test showed both imagery conditions to be superior to the intentional control condition. Furthermore, imagery instructions facilitated incidental recall of the retarded Ss equal to the recall of normal children in the intentional condition. Four presentations of pairs in contrast to one presentation during the orientation task improved the learning of both groups. The recall of retarded Ss in contrast to normal Ss, however, was greater with four presentations under imagery instructions than under intentional control instructions. The results were discussed in terms of imagery processes and their educational implications.

Recent investigations have demonstrated that instructions to use mental imagery facilitates incidental recall of words in adult subjects (Bower, in press; Sheehan, 1971; Yarmey & Ure, 1971). The role of instructions to use imagery in intentional and incidental learning in children is uncertain. The major purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of imagery sets on incidental recall of picture-paired associates and wordpaired associates in both educable retarded children and normal children. Williams (1970) has shown that mentally ret,arded subjects are able to learn incidentally, but the literature is inconclusive as to whether they are inferior to normal Ss equated on mental age (MA) or chronological age (CA). A seriesof studies in paired-associate learning (PAL) by retardates indicates that Xs are able to follow instructions to use verbal mediators which facilitate their performance, in contrast to their performance fol‘This research was supported by a grant from the National Research Council of Canada (APA 288) to the first author and a grant from the Ontario Mental Health Foundation (OMHF 638-74) to the second author. The authors would like to thank Linda R. Krasnor and Karen M. Gough for their assistance and express their gratitude to the Waterloo County Board of Education, W. S. Hougham, Superintendent. Educational Services. ‘Reprint requests should be sent to A. D. Ynrmey, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 303

Copyright @ 1972 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

304

YARMEY

AND

BOWEN

lowing standard PAL instructions (see Gordon and Baumeister, 1971). The view that mediational processes predominantly are verbal apparently governs the theoretical orient’ation of most investigators of verbal learning in disadvantaged children (see Jensen, 1971). This theoretical orientation has been challenged by several investigators (e.g., Bugelski, 1970; Paivio, 1969, 1971; Reese, 1970) who suggest that nonverbal imagery may be the basis of verbal mediation. According to Paivio (1969)) objects, pictures of objects, and nouns vary in their ability to arouse nonverbal imagery which may facilitate associative learning and mediate associative recall. The relevance of imagery as a mediator in associative learning of retarded children is suggested by the findings of Taylor, Josberger and Knowlton (1970). Educable retarded children were found to be equal to normal children in imagery production. Furthermore, Taylor (1970) found that retarded children may be trained t.0 use verbal and nonverbal imagery mediators to facilitate their ret.ention. Since imagery memory codes appear to be available in children, it was reasoned that orientation to imagery responses would facilitate their incidental learning. Incidental and intentional learning of both noun pairs and picture pairs were investigated in order t,o compare the results to those of Spiker and Bartel (1969). In their study, retarded children showed no significant differences in recall of pictures versus nouns. Finally, the stimulus materials were presented either once or four times in order to test if repetition of materials under varying instructional sets would yield differences in intentional and incidental recall between normal and retarded SF. METHOD Subjects The Ss were 45 educable retarded children, CA S-13 years, mean IQ-71.3 (WISC or Stanford-Binet, based on school records), and 45 normal children, CA S-13 years, mean IQ-110.5. The educable retarded children were selected from the special education classes and the normal children were chosen from the regular classes in the same public schools. Both groups of children were assigned randomly to one of eight counterbalanced list conditions with the restrictions that the number and average age of Ss from each group were the same for each list.3 Two educable retarded children were dropped after the practice session because they could not understand the task and one S from the normal group was excluded for cheating during recall. These children were replaced by three other 8s. Design The design involved a 2 x 2 x 3 x 2 factorial combination educable retarded) , stimulus materials (nounand picture-pairs),

two

3 In each of six counterbalanced list conditions had 6 Ss each.

list

conditions

there

were

of Ss (normal and instruction condi14 Ss. The

remaining

IMAGERY

IN

I?r’CIDENTAL

LEARXIKG

305

tions (intentional imagery, incidental imagery and intentional control), and prescntntions (once and four times). All Ss were given an orientation task of rating the> picture pairs and noun pairs according to one of three instruction conditions. H:lli’ of each of the pictureand noun-pairs were presented once; the other half wctre presented four times. Immediately following the orientation tnsk. 211 S’s wtxrf’ givr,n an sssocintive word-recall test. Mdcrids

cc~td CYounterbalawing

of Lists

Each PA list consisted of 16 paired items, eight noun-pairs and eight picture-pairs. The nouns and pictures represented familiar objects, e.g., flower, chair, apple, dog. The nouns we’re formed by 1 in. black gothic-style Lettrnset letters spaced so as to conform as closrly as possible in size with the corresponding picture. Piciurcx JVCU black-and-white line drawings. Both nouns and pictures were centered on wllit(’ flash cards, 8.5 X 11 in. The eight derived PA lists were counterbalanced for (:L) represt,ntstion of the item as a picture or as its noun label, (b) order of presentxtion of eit,her noun or picture within a list, (c) the number of fimes the pair was ITpeated in the Ii& and (d) the stimulus and response> position of the item. For rxample: cnch item served both as a picture and as :t noun ; WAS presented in the first. half and second half of the PA lists; was presented once and four timrxs; and SCIYCVI as :L slimulus and as a response member of the paired :LssocintcA.

Iufenfioml imagery. Subjects under this condition wpcre givrn the following instructions. I would like to play a word game with you. I am going to show you a pail, of words or a pair of pictures one at a time, like this (the Experimenter (E) show~(111 :i Ilrarticr word-pair and a practice picture-pair). I would like you to imagine some picture or image between these two words (or pict,ures). Iior example, if I show you (E demonst,raird with a pair of practirc words or practire pictures) you could imagine . . . Kow look at the first page of your booklet, If it is vpry easy for you to imagim somtl mental image or mrntal picture, I want you to circle 5 on the rating sheet. If the picture is very clear or you can see the picture c*lf>arly in your imagination, circle the 5. If it is very difficult or you cannot imagincl any picture you must circle 1. If you cannot 8ce it, vcr,v well at all, circle 2. If you c*:rn see it prc,tl,v ~~11. circlr 3. If you (‘an SPY it. bcttcr than that, but not quite Ilcrfrctly circle thf% 4. licmt~mhrr. ihr% lower the% number. the more difficult it is for you to imngincs :i pirturr for cnrh pair OF wor~ls or pic~turc~s. \-ou only have :I ecrtain amount of tini<, to illlngint~ :I rnc~nt;~l im:tp(* h(~twet~n the> word pairs and the picture pairs. Whran I s’l> “rc~rtly” stxrt imqining the pic:tl~rc. I will timr ~-011 nnd when I szy ‘stop’ you should h:lvts finished circling the number. If not, circle it right away. I will give you this amount of time to botll imagine a pict,ure and circle the number. (E demonstrated an S-set time interval.) Kow lrt us try and see if you can do some ratings to some word pairs and pictnrrs pairs (the E asked each child to create a mental ICrture. to vcrhallp &s&x> it. then helped S to rate it) Sometimes you might see a word pair or picture p:lil once, sometimes you might, see it four t,imes. Don’t. worry, it’s part of thr game. After Ss had demonstrated that they rould rate :i picture pair and a word pair. the following instructions were given : While you are making up some mental pict,urP and rat inp thP items. I would like you to learn the word pairs and the picturcb p:rira txxcxusr Int~~r on I will show :.orl :i

306

YARMEY

AND

BOWEN

word or picture and ask you to write down the one that went with it. The mental picture you imagine will help you to remember the paired words and objects. I will show you the first one and you must write down the second. For example, if I show you ......... ..... what word would you write down? Do you understand? Any questions before we begin? Okay, ready? Let’s start rating the words and the pictures. Remember there is only one rating for each pair. Learn the words and the pictures that go together. The E checked each child’s work to make sure it was done correctly. Incidental imagery. Subjects were given identical instructions to those given in the Intentional Imagery condition with the exception of the additional instructions so that no reference was made to the recall task. None of the 8s in this condition reported in the postexperimental interview that they had anticipated a test for memory of the paired associates. Intentional control. Subjects were given instructions similar to the above two sets, with the following exceptions. They were not required to form a mental picture, instead, they were asked to recall how recently they had heard the nouns or had seen the pictured objects. Subjects were asked to rate the recency (from a high of 5, “today,” to a low of 1, “a long, long time ago, I can’t remember”). In addition, they were told to learn the paired associates since they would be asked later to participate in a recall test for the paired nouns and paired pictures. Procedure Practice session. The children were tested individually, or in small groups of not more than four, in a small, quiet room in their school. Subjects were allowed to choose a toy from an array of small, inexpensive toys before beginning the task. They were told they would get their chosen toy at the end of the game if they did very well. Subjects were given practice on two noun pairs and two picture pairs under one of the three instruction condition groups described above. The test session immediately followed the practice session. Test session. Subjects were given a 40-page booklet. On each page, a 5-point rating scale from l-5 was presented. As previously mentioned, all Ss were given an orienting task of rating the pairs. Pairs that were presented once and four times were distributed randomly over the 40 pages over all Ss. Subjects rated and turned each page of the booklet every eight seconds. Immediately following the ratings, all Ss were given an associative word-recall task for the 16 paired-associates. Each stimulus picture and stimulus word was presented for eight seconds. Subjects were instructed to write the noun labels for all picture responses. The recall order of the stimulus items differed from their order for the orientation tasks.

RESULTS

Scoring Procedure The recall data were scored using two criteria: (1) Strict Scoringnouns counted as correct if they were spelled correctly or were a good approximation of the correct spelling; (2) Lenient Scoring-this included words under the strict scoring as well as words which had the first two letters correct, or a drawing substituted for the correct word. Although Ss were asked to write their responses, the latter criterion was used to

IMAGERY

MEAN

NUMRER

IN

INCIDENTAL

TABLE 1 OF CORRECT RECALLS FOR BOTH ANALYSIS FOR THE EXPERIMENTaL Strict ~-

Treatments Learning Instructions Intentional imagery Incidental imagery Intentional control Subjects Retarded Normal Symbol Picture Word Ratings One Four

No. of ss

Obtained Mean

307

LEARNING

STRICT AND LENIENT TREATMENTS

SCORING

Lenient

sll

Total Possible Mean

Obtained hIean

Sl)

30 30 30

8.30 6.97 1.96

5.94 5.35 2.53

16 16 16

9.90 9.03 3.60

4.81 4.09 :!.:i1

45 45

2.93 8.S

4.09 5.36

16 16

5.73 S.62

4 3:: 5.34

90 90

2.99 2.76

2.93 2.75

S s

3.54 3.33

2.64 2.55

90 90

2.03 3.71

2.69 3.13

8 8

2.47 4.71

2.66 2 so

take into account the possibility t,hat some of the retarded children might have difficulty in ret,rieving the whole word, transforming their pictorial images into words, or spelling the words correctly. Table 1 presents a summary of the mean number of correct recall scores for both the strict scoring analysis and the lenient scoring analysis for each of the four treatments. Strict scoring analysis. The results were analyzed in a 2 X 2 X 3 X 2 analysis of variance with type of Ss (normal and retardates) and instruction conditions (intentional imagery, incidental imagery, and intentional control) treated as between-Ss variables, and stimulus materials (noun pairs and picture pairs) and exposures (once and four times) treated as within-Ss variables. Performance of normal Ss was substantially superior to that of the retardates, F (1,252) = 48.16, p < .OOl. The three instruction conditions also yielded significant differences in recall, F(2,252) = 22.65, p < .OOl. Duncan’s multiple range t#est revealed that intentional imagery instructions were superior to the incidental imagery instructions, which in turn were superior to the intentional control instructions (p < .Ol). As was expected, the greater the number of repetitions of the pairs, the better was the recall, F(1,252) = 76.77, p < .OOl. The main effects for stimulus materials (picture pairs over noun pairs) failed to reach the generally accepted statistical level of significance, F (1,252) = 2.81, .05 > p < .lO. The left-hand portion of Fig. 1 shows the significant interaction of

308

YARMEY

STRICT

AND

BOWEN

LENIENT

ANALYSIS n INTENTIONAL o INCIDENTAL o INTENTIONAL

ANALYSIS

IMAGERY IMAGERY CONTROL

WI i 25 w IL:

3

t; E CT 0 u z a

2

1

s RETARDED SUBJECTS

NORMAL

RETARDED

NORMAL

SUBJECTS

FIG. 1. Mean number of correct recalls as a function of type of subjects and instruction conditions.

type of Ss X instruction conditions, P(2,252) = 3.01, p < .05. For normal Ss, the mean score for intentional imagery instructions differed reliably (p < .05, Duncan’s Range test) from the mean score for incidental imagery instructions, whereas, these two sets did not differ for retarded Ss. Performance under intentional and incidental imagery sets, however, for both retarded and normal Ss was significantly superior to their performance under the intentional control (no imagery) instructions. The interaction suggests that imagery sets were part,icularly facilitating for retarded Ss since their incidental imagery learning scores were approximately equal to their level of performance for intentional imagery learning. This interpretation, however, must be qualified by the possibility of a “floor effect” for retardates. The retarded Ss’ average performance level was approximately 18% compared to the normal Ss’ performance level of approximately 51%. The left-hand portion of Fig. 2 graphically presents the significant interaction of stimulus materials X instruction conditions, F(2,252) = 3.29, p < .05. The mean scores for intentional and incidental imagery sets were significantly different from each other on noun pairs but not on picture pairs (p < .05, Duncan’s Range test). The two imagery sets, however, differed reliably from the intentional control set for both nouns and pictures. The interaction indicates that imagery representations of concrete drawings under intentional and incidental learning sets yielded similar recall scores, whereas with nouns, imagery representations mediated superior associative recall under the intentional learning set. A significant interaction was also found between types of Ss X exposures,

IMAGERY

IN

INCIDENTAL

STRICT

ANALYSIS

LENIENT .4NTENTIONAL. q incidental ‘-INTENTIONAL

PICTURES STIMULUS FIG.

2.

instruction

Mean number conditions.

NOUNS MATERIALS

309

LEARKIN(;

ANALYSIS

IMAGERY IMAGERY CONTROL

PICTURES STIMULUS

of correct recalls as a function

NOUNS MATERIALS

of stimulus

materials

and

F(2,252) = 8.76, p < .Ol. Normal Xs, in contrast to retardates, showed a greater facilitation in performance with four as opposed to only one presentat.ion of the paired-associates (means of 2.70 and 1.58 for normals, and 1.01 and 0.46 for retardates). The above interaction was qualified by a significant. three-way interaction for Ss X exposures X instruction conditions, F(2,252) = 4.89, p < .Ol. The means for these conditions indicated t.hat repeated exposure to materials improved performance of retarded Xs equally well for intentional imagery (means of 0.70 and 1.50) and incidental imagery (means of 0.63 and 1.331, but had little effect for the intentional control condition (means of 0.03 and 0.20). On the other hand, for normal Xs, the intentional control condition showed a much greater improvement with repeated exposures (means of 0.17 and 1.57j. Incidental imagery also showed a substantial improvement. (means of 1.83 and 3.17), whereas the improvement with pract’ice for intentional imagery was not as great (means of 2.73 and 3.37). This interaction suggests that performance of educable retarded children was substantially improved as they practiced and utilized imagery mnemonics, whereas imagery processing and practice were useful but, not as dramatic with normal children. Lenient scoring analysis. The analysis of variance on lenient scores yielded the same significant effects that were obtained with the strict, criterion, with two exceptions. First, the significant effect of instruction conditions, F (2,252) = 37.09, p < 901, was due to both intentional imagery and incidental imagery condit’ions being superior to the in+cn+ionsl control condition. The two imagery conditions, however, did not reliably differ from

310

YARMEY

AND

BOWEN

each other. Secondly, a significant superiority in recall was found for picture pairs in contrast to noun pairs, F(1,252) = 14.54, p < .OOl. The right-hand portions of Figs. 1 and 2 show that the results for the respective treatments, generally, were consistent for the lenient and the strict scoring analysis. The only major difference between the two criteria was the improved performance for retarded Ss under the lenient scoring method. DISCUSSION

The present results illustrate that instructions to use imagery facilitate the intentional and the incidental learning of both normal and educable retarded children. These results are consistent with the other investigations which found that retardates are able to utilize nonverbal imagery mediators to facilitate learning (Taylor, 1970; Taylor, Josberger & Knowlton, 1970). The most significant aspect of the present study, however, is the finding that the performance of the retarded children was equally enhanced by intentional and incidental imagery instructions. Indeed, both types of imagery conditions were superior to the intentional control (no imagery) condition. These facilitatory effects were even more pronounced under lenient scoring analyses. Finally, Fig. 1 shows that intentional and incidental imagery recall for retarded Ss is equal to the intentional control learning of normal Ss under the strict scoring procedure, whereas under lenient scoring procedures, both imagery conditions are superior to the intentional control condition for normal 8s. The results of this study do not support Spiker and Bartel’s (1969) finding that retarded children recall words equally well as they recall pictures. Our results indicated that under a strict scoring analysis, recall of picture pairs was slightly superior to the recall of noun pairs. Employment of a lenient scoring analysis, however, yielded a significant superiority in recall for pictures over nouns. These results appear to support the investigations of Dilley and Paivio (1968) and Paivio and Yarmey (1966). These investigators found a superiority in learning for picturenoun pairs over picture-picture pairs while both paired combinations were superior to noun-picture and noun-noun pairs. Paivio and his associates have suggested that pictorial responses were difficult to recall, especially for children, because of the transformations required to decode a nonverbal memory image into a verbal response. The use of the lenient scoring, as opposed to the strict scoring procedure, shows that the retarded children, in particular, were able to encode and retrieve the pictorial materials more easily than the verbal materials if partial recalls or substitutions were allowed. It would seem that the inferior performance of the

IMAGERY

IN

INCIDENTAL

LEARNING

311

retarded $s under strict scoring may not be due entirely to the response availability in recall, but rather, to the inability of these Ss to retrieve all their available information in the t,ime limit given, particularly if they are required to retrieve them as words. Furthermore, the recall performance of the retardates was improved significantly due to greater practice and imagery processing during the orientation task, whereas normal Ss did not show, relatively, such a dramatic improvement. From a Piagetian point of view, it could be argued that since the retardates would require a longer time for new information to be integrated int,o their existing schema than would normal children, repeated exposures to these stimuli accompanied by their imagery schema proved more beneficial to them than for the latter group. One firm conclusion of the present study is that educable retarded children and normal children are able to learn incidentally, provided they make differential imagery responses to the stimulus materials during the orientation task. The educational implications of the present findings suggest that children, and in particular educable retardates, would benefit in classroom associative learning tasks from teaching methods that involve the use of mental imagery. In addition, when the information is presented pictorially, help should be given at recall to assist the transformation processes which are necessary to decode the nonverbal imagery codes into verbal responses. REFERENCES BOWER, G. H. Mental

imagery and associative learning. In Lee Gregg (Ed.). (‘ogmemory. New York: Wiley, in press. BUGELSKI, B. R. Words and things and images. American Psychologisf, 1970. 25, 1002-1012. DILLEY, M. G., & PAIVIO, A. Pictures and words as stimulus and response items in paired-associate learning of young children. Journal of Experimental ChiZrZ Psychology, 1968, 6, 231-240. GORDON, D. A., & BAUMEISTER, A. A. The use of verbal mediation in the retarded as a function of developmental level and response availability. Journal of E-C:perimental Child Psychology, 1971, 12, 9.5-105. JENSEN, A. R. The role of verbal mediation in mental development. Jownnl of Genetic Psychology, 1971, 118, 39-70. PAIVIO, A. Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psycllological ne&lu, 1969, 76, 241-263. PAIVIO, A. On the functional significance of imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 38S392. PAIVIO, A. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Halt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. PAIVIO, A., & YARMEY, A. D. Pictures versus words as stimuli and responses in pairedassociate learning. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5, 235-236. nition

in learning

and

312

YARMEY

AND

BOWEN

H. W. Imagery and contextual memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 404-414. SHEEHAN, P. W. The role of imagery in incidental learning. British Journal of Psychology, 1971, 62, 235-243. SPIKER, H. H., & BARTEL, N. The mentally retarded. In G. G. Johnson (Ed.), Review of research on exceptional children. Washington: Council for Exceptional Children, NEA, 1968. TAYLOR, A. M. Visual imagery instruction and non-action versus action situations relative to recall by children. Final Report Project No. 9-E-030, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Office of Education, Bureau of Research, 1970. TAYLOR, A. M., JOSBERGER, M., & KNOWLTON, J. Q. Mental elaboration and learning with mentally retarded children. Working paper, Center for Educational Research and Development in Mental Ret,ardation, Indiana University, April, 1970. WILLIAMS, E. H. Effects of readiness on incidental learning in EMR, normal and gifted children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1970, 75, 117-119. YARMEY, A. D., & URE, G. Incidental learning, noun-imagery concreteness and direction of associations in ljaired-associate learning. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1971, 25, 91-102. REESE,