- Email: [email protected]
What happens when university students try to answer prequestions that accompany textbook material?
CONTEMPORARY
EDUCATIONAL
What Happens Prequestions
PSYCHOLOGY
15,
27-35 (I!?%))
when University Students Try to Answer That Accompany Textbook Material?
MICHAEL
PRESLEY University
MARK
AND ROBBI TANENBAUM of Western Ontario
A. MCDANIEL
Purdue University
AND EILEEN University
WOOD
of Western Ontario
University students read a textbook chapter. Before reading, subjects in the prequestions-answered condition responded to prequestions about the chapter. Prequestions-read subjects read but did not attempt to answer these same prequestions before reading the chapter. Control subjects were not provided prequestions. Following reading, the subjects took a post-test over the chapter, with half the test questions based on prequestions and half covering material that was not prequestioned. Prequestions-answered subjects significantly outperformed control subjects on recall of material that was prequestioned, regardless of whether the prequestion had been answered correctly before reading. There were no prequestionsread versus control differences on questions relevant to prequestioned content and no experimental effects at all on questions over material that was not prequestioned. In general, these data are consistent with theoretical claims that prior knowledge activation increases learning and that activated but incorrect prior knowledge does not interfere with learning new content that is inconsistent with the activated prior knowledge. The data particularly provide support for the instructional practice of encouraging readers to attempt to answer prequestions before reading. 0 l!BO Academic Press, Inc.
There is a long history of providing questions as adjuncts to text (e.g., Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Andre, 1987; Hamilton, 1985; Pressey, 1926). One of the most robust findings in this literature is that learning of prequestioned material is enhanced, at least if students are permitted to select the parts of text that they read following exposure to prequestions (Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Levin & Pressley, 1981; Tiemey & Cunningham, 1984). More negatively, acquisition of nonquestioned material is often reduced because readers fail to attend to it as much as they attend This research was supported by a grant to the fust author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Correspondence and reprint requests should be directed to author Pressley, Department of Human Development/Institute of Child Study, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. 27 0361-476x/90 $3.00 Copyright 6 1990 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
28
PRESSLEY
ET AL.
to material relevant to the prequestions. Although these findings are certainly important, there are many gaps in our knowledge about prequestioning effects-Little is known about prequestion effects on processes other than selective attention. To illuminate other effects produced by prequestioning, this experiment employed procedures that discouraged the selective reading of text. Our particular concern here was whether attempting to answer prequestions per se (rather than just reading them) affects learning of subsequent text (see Hamilton, 1985, for commentary). Research on this issue is important because answering prequestions is an obvious response that readers can make to them. Subjects in a prequestions-answered condition responded to 23 prequestions about the content covered in a textbook chapter; they were required to justify their answers. Subjects in a prequestions-read condition were shown the prequestions before reading the chapter, reading the prequestions under a set requiring meaningful processing of these questions, but they were not required to attempt to answer these prequestions. Subjects in a control condition had no prereading exposure to questions. Subjects in all conditions took a 46question post-test over the material covered in the chapter following reading. When readers provide and justify correct answers to prequestions, it would be expected that post-test recall of prequestioned content should be enhanced. Correct responders are thinking “deeply” about the upcoming text and activating knowledge about the topic in doing so (cf. Rickards, 1976; Rickards & BiVesta, 1974; Watts & Anderson, 1971)-In general, learners remember more that they read if they activate relevant prior knowledge (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Arnold & Brooks, 1976; Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Brown, Smiley, Day, Townsend, & Lawton, 1977; Levin & Pressley, 1981; Pearson, Hansen, & Gordon, 1979; Tierney & Cunningham, 1984). Although reading prequestions might also activate relevant knowledge, we expected such activation to be minimal or less extensive in the absence of responding to the questions. If so, then reading prequestions would not be expected to enhance posttest recall of prequestioned content, at least not as much as in the prequestions-answered condition. There was much less certainty about the effects on memory of text when there are incorrect answers to prequestions. Positive effects are predicted by the view that text-based information that conflicts with prior knowledge and expectations is especially noticeable and noted, and thus should be especially memorable (e.g., Graesser & Nakamura, 1982; Mandler, 1984; O’Brien & Myers, 1985; Peeck, van den Bosch, & Kreupeling, 1982; Schank, 1982). Alternatively, negative effects could follow from activation of a flawed knowledge base including interference, errant in-
PREQUESTIONS
29
ferences, and intrusions inconsistent with the text content (e.g., Alvermann, Smith, & Readence, 1985; Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Brown et al., 1977; Lipson, 1982; Pichert & Anderson, 1977; Smith, Readence, & Alvermann, 1984). Nonetheless, since most reports of negative effects due to activation of incorrect prior knowledge were generated with children, it was not clear whether comparable problems would occur with adults-Adults may be better able to suppress inconsistent prior knowledge that had been activated during reading (or even correct their knowledge base in light of text content). Finally, this experiment was concerned with whether responding to prequestions produces more general effects, either facilitating or inhibiting memory of material that was not prequestioned. On the positive side, activating knowledge about one aspect of a passage could increase activation of other relevant prior knowledge. Negative effects might be expected, however, if subjects tried to understand the text in light of incorrect prior knowledge that was activated during prequestioning. Such an attempt to integrate the text with incorrect prior knowledge could lower comprehension, thereby leading to poorer retention (Bransford & Johnson, 1972). METHOD
Subjects Sixty students enrolled in an introductory psychology course participated in the experiment for a small amount of course credit. Participants ranged from 18 to 23 years of age (mean = 19.33years). Subjects were proficient in English and familiar with North American life-styles. Subjects were randomly assigned to the three conditions.
Materials Subjects read a 30-page chapter, “Adult development in the family,” from Troll’s (1975) an undergraduate life span development text. The chapter was selected because differences between younger and older adults is a topic that virtually all university students would have some preconceptions about, even if their ideas were in error. The chapter was edited slightly to remove materials that would be considered sexist by mid-1980s standards. The 46 post-test questions were based exclusively on material in the edited chapter. The questions covered important points in the chapter (determined by three raters) and were from material distributed throughout the text. Each required a short answer. For example, one question was, “What proportion of today’s college students believe that their sexual standards are like those of their parents?” Two sets of 23 prequestions were prepared, with each prequestion a rewording of one of the 46 post-test items so that the answer was dichotomous (although subjects were required to provide elaborated responses to justify the answer selected). For instance, the shortanswer item cited in the last paragraph was reworded, “Do most college students believe that their sexual attitudes are the same as their parents? Yes/No?” The 46 questions were randomly assigned to one of two sets of 23 prequestions.
Early and Middle Adulthood,
30
PRESSLEY
ET AL.
Procedure All subjects were tested individually. Subjects in two of the conditions were presented prequestions before they read the 30-page passage. Prequestions-answered subjects were presented one of the two sets of prequestions (half received one set, half the other) with the following directions: Today you will be asked to read an article on adult development in the family. We are interested in devising materials on adult development that are easy to understand in terms of a person’s own life. What I would like you to do is to answer 23 questions about adult development. All the questions have two possible answers. Choose one. If you have no idea what the right answer might be, then guess. Say your answer on to the tape recorder. Specify the number of the question that you are referring to. Then, answer the question and describe why you chose your answer and how it might relate to your own life. For example: Question: Is there a difference between the supply of marriage-eligible men and women? Answer: Number 1. “Yes. I know among my friends more female friends are single than males.” Work at a comfortable pace. You will have approximately 15 minutes to complete the task.
In fact, prequestions-answered subjects were permitted as much time as they needed to complete the task (with most taking about 15 min or a little less). Prequestions-read subjects were also given 23 prequestions (again, the specific sets were counterbalanced) and were instructed to focus on the meaning of the questions as follows: Today you will be asked to read a chapter on adult development in the family. Before reading the chapter I would like you to take a look at some questions on the topic of adult development. Sometimes questions are difftcult to understand, for example, because there is inappropriate punctuation used in the questions. We would like to make sure that the questions we devised are easy to comprehend, for instance, by using the best punctuation to make the questions optimally clear. What I would like you to do is to read each question to yourself onto the tape recorder. Say which number you are referring to. Then say “yes ” if you feel that the question was well written and easy to understand and say “no” if you think the question was not well written and it was difficult to understand. Then read the question out loud and enunciate appropriately to make the meaning of the question clear.
Prequestions-read subjects were also told that they would be given 15 min to complete the prequestion task, although the actual amount of time given to a prequestions-read subject was equal to the amount of time taken by a yoked prequestions-answered subject to complete the prequestions . Control subjects were given no exposure to the prequestions, but instead proceeded immediately to the task of reading the passage. When the chapter was presented, subjects in all conditions were told to read all 30 pages. We determined during pilot testing that nonselective reading of the text (i.e., material read one time and one time only with reading proceeding from the beginning to the end of text) could be obtained by instructing subjects emphatically to read all of the materials and
PREQUESTIONS
31
by having subjects overtly rate each paragraph for its comprehensibility. (It was important to guarantee nonselectivity since one response when prequestions are provided is simply to read only the prequestioned content, a response set that we wished to avoid.) Pilot testing also made obvious that pausing after each paragraph to rate comprehensibility was done effortlessly by subjects so that the rating task minimally disrupted reading. Reading in all conditions was directed as follows: You are going to read a chapter on adult development in the family. At the end of each paragraph you will be required to make an assessment about whether or not that paragraph was well written and easy to comprehend. All that you need to do is check the yes box if you think the paragraph was well written and easy to understand or the no box if you think it was not well written and hard to understand. The yes/no boxes can be found on an additional page that you will be given. Each number on the page corresponds to a paragraph number. It is important that you read each sentence only once. After you read each paragraph, do not reread it, just make your assessment and move on. Work at a comfortable pace.’
Following reading and paragraph-by-paragraph rating, subjects took the 4dquestion test. They were directed to answer on the basis of the information in the chapter. To gauge whether the randomization procedure had produced groups that were roughly comparable with respect to reading ability, all subjects were administered a short reading-comprehension test at the end of the experimental session. They were presented four reading comprehension passagesfrom the SAT (College Entrance Examination Board, 1986) and were required to respond to 14 multiple-choice items accompanying the passages. Subjects were given 20 min to complete the items. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
First of all, the three experimental groups performed approximately equally on the SAT items. The prequestions-answered subjects averaged 9.85 correct (maximum = 14) on the brief reading-comprehension test administered at the end of the session. The corresponding means in the prequestions-read and control conditions were 8.20 and 8.40, largest pairwise t(57) = 1.77, p > .05, between these three means. These data suggested roughly comparable reading-comprehension abilities in the three conditions. The experimental manipulation did not affect the perceived comprehensibility of the passage. Prequestions-answered subjects rated a mean of 68.6 (maximum = 83) of the paragraphs as easy to understand. Pre’ A variety of informal (i.e., observation of subjects while they read, postreading questioning) and formal (i.e., examination of the rating sheets) measures during pilot testing and during the conduct of the actual study suggested that subjects complied with these directions.
32
PRESSLEY ET AL.
questions-read subjects did so for 72.6 paragraphs. On average control subjects considered 72.3 paragraphs as easy to comprehend. The largest pairwise t(57) = 1.57, p > .lO, between these three means. The post-tests were scored by two judges with 99% agreement. The post-test scores of prequestions-answered and prequestions-read subjects were broken down into post-test items derived from prequestions and questions covering content that was not prequestioned. Post-test questions in the prequestions-answered condition were further subdivided into ones based on prequestions answered correctly and those based on prequestions answered incorrectly. The mean proportions of subjects recalling items (i.e., mean recall per item) are recorded in Table 1 as a function of experimental condition and item type. All of the proportions in Table 1 were compared with each other pairwise, with items as the random variable (i.e., dependent t tests conducted within items). (We do not report analyses with subjects as the random variable since such analyses involve confoundings of items and conditions for comparisons involving the prequestions-answered means; that is, each subject’s prequestioncorrect and prequestion-incorrect proportion would be based on a set of items unique to that subject.)2 A per comparison Type 1 error rate of .Ol was adopted to maintain a reasonable experimentwise error rate, with cutoff t = 2.70 in these analyses (e.g., Kirk, 1982). The significant pairwise differences are summarized in Table 1. In summary, the significant learning gains in the prequestions-answered condition and the absence of significant gains in the prequestions-read condition support the instructional practice of encouraging readers to attempt to answer prequestions. These gains made obvious that reading prequestions and attempting to answer them can affect learning positively, even if gross selective attention mechanisms are not permitted to operate (i.e., when the entire text is read as it was here). The failure of prequestion reading alone to increase recall of material covered in the prequestions or to decrease recall of material covered in the prequestions or to decrease recall of material not covered in the prequestions increases the credibility of our assumption that selective attention mechanisms were unlikely with the procedures used here (Anderson & Biddle, 1975). As expected on the basis of previous research on prior knowledge effects, responding correctly to prequestions was associated with better ’ The pattern of significant outcomes is the same with subjects as the random variable with the exception of one comparison. The contrast within the prequestions-answered condition was significant (i.e., prequestion-correct items were significantly more likely to be answered correctly on the post-test than prequestion-incorrect items). Since this contrast is not particularly important compared to other contrasts in the analyses, we do not consider this slight difference in significant outcomes (a trend in one analysis, significant in the other) to be interpretively consequential.
33
PREQUESTIONS
TABLE 1 MEAN PROPORTIONS OF SUBJECTS ANSWERING EACH ITEM CORRECTLY AS A FUNCTION OF EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION AND PREQUESTION STATUS Prequestion answered correctly
Prequestion answered incorrectly
Prequestion exposed M
Condition
M
SD
M
SD
Prequestionsanswered + Prequestionsread Control
.714”
,325
.634”,b
.317
-
-
-
.5896,’
-
-
-
-
Not available as prequestion
SD
M
SD
-
.5396,’
.307
.526b.’
,268
,509’
.255
,277
-
Note. Mean proportions sharing superscripts do not differ significantly at p < .Ol. + Prequestions-Answered proportions each based on 45 items. One prequestion was answered correctly by all subjects and thus could not be used in the prequestion-correct analysis. Based on a mean of 10.45 prequestion-correct items per subject.
performance on corresponding post-test items. More importantly, activating inconsistent prior knowledge (i.e., by answering prequestions incorrectly) did not interfere with subsequent learning. In fact, post-test questions derived from prequestion-incorrect items were more likely to be answered correctly than post-test questions corresponding to prequestion-read and no-prequestion items. This pattern was marginally significant when prequestion-incorrect items were compared to no-prequestion items in the prequestions-answered and in the prequestions-read groups (.Ol < p < .05 in both cases). The advantage was significant when prequestion-incorrect items were compared to control group items. The advantage of prequestion-incorrect items relative to prequestions-read items was less striking, however @ < .30). This overall pattern of results (especially the prequestions-answered versus control comparisons) is consistent with the theoretical perspective that activating prior knowledge can positively affect learning of both content that is congruent and content that is not congruent with prior knowledge (e.g., Graesser & Nakamura, 1982; Mandler, 1984, Chap. 3). On the other hand, some theorists (e.g., Graesser & Nakamura, 1982) posit that information inconsistent with prior knowledge should actually be more memorable (at least in the short-term) than consistent information-That was not the case here, with small- to moderate-sized positive effects at best (i.e., approximately a half standard deviation relative to the control condition) (Cohen, 1977)associated with activation of inconsistent knowledge. Moreover, knowledge activation effects due to prequestioning were very constrained, for responding to prequestions did not affect memory of material not covered by the prequestions. We believe that future studies of effects produced by responding to prequestions should attempt to collect on-line data as readers go through
PRESSLEY ET AL.
34
text. Such information should illuminate the mechanisms that mediate effects produced by prequestion responding. For instance, do people explicitly recognize and encode that text information is consistent or inconsistent with their prequestion responses? If readers do not recognize and consciously note consistencies and inconsistencies between texts and prequestion responses, can they be taught to do so so that their comprehension and memory of text is increased? Such research should provide additional information about mechanisms that would increase the utility of adjunct aids. REFERENCES D. E., SMITH, L. C., & READENCE, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible texts. Reading Research Quar-
ALVERMANN,
terly, 20, 42W36. R. C., & BIDDLE, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research und theory (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press. ANDERSON, R. C., &PEARSON, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Hundbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman. ANDRE, T. (1987). Questions and learning from reading. Questioning Exchange, 1, 47-86. ARNOLD, D. J., & BROOKS, P. H. (1976). Influence of contextual organizing material on children’s listening comprehension. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 68, 711-716. BRUNSFORD, J. D., & JOHNSON, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726. BROWN, A. L., SMILEY, S. S., DAY, J., TOWNSEND, M., & LAWTON, S. C. (1977). Intrusion of a thematic idea in children’s recall of prose. Child Development, 48, 1454-1466. COHEN, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. College Entrance Examination Board (1986). 10 SAT fesfs. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board. GRAESSER, A. C., & NAKAMURA, G. V. (1982). The impact of a schema on comprehension and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of/earning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 16). New York: Academic Press. HAMILTON, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions. Review of Educational Research, 55, 47-86. KIRK, R. E. (1982). Experimental design (2nd ed.) Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. LEVIN, J. R., & PRESSLEY,M. (1981). Improving children’s prose comprehension: Selected strategies that seem to succeed. In D. Santa & E. Bittayes (Eds.), Children’s prose comprehension: Reseurch and practice (pp. 4&71). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. LIPSON,M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243-261. MANDLER, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. O’BRIEN, E. J., & MYERS,J. L. (1985). When comprehension difftculty improves memory for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 12-21. ANDERSON,
PREQUESTIONS
35
P. D., HANSEN, J., & GORDON,C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209. PEECK, J., VAN DEN BOSCH, A. B., & KREUPELING, W. J. (1982). Effect of mobilizing prior knowledge in learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 771-777. PICHERT, J. W., & ANDERSON, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315. PRESSEY, S. L. A. (1926). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores-and teaches.
PEARSON,
School and Society, 23, 373-376.
J. P. (1976). Interaction of position and conceptual level of adjunct questions on immediate and delayed retention of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 210217. RICKARDS, J. P., & DIVESTA, F. J. (1974). Type and frequency of questions in processing text material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 354-362. SCHANK, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. SMITH, L. C., READENCE, J. E., & ALVERMANN, D. E. (1984). Effects of activating background knowledge on comprehension of expository prose. In 33rd Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 188-192). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. TIERNEY, R. J., & CUNNINGHAM, J. W. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-655). New York: Longman. TROLL, L. E. (1975). Early and middle adulthood. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. WATTS, G. H., & ANDERSON, R. C. (1971). Effects of three types of inserted questions on learning from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 387-394.
RICKARDS,
EDUCATIONAL
What Happens Prequestions
PSYCHOLOGY
15,
27-35 (I!?%))
when University Students Try to Answer That Accompany Textbook Material?
MICHAEL
PRESLEY University
MARK
AND ROBBI TANENBAUM of Western Ontario
A. MCDANIEL
Purdue University
AND EILEEN University
WOOD
of Western Ontario
University students read a textbook chapter. Before reading, subjects in the prequestions-answered condition responded to prequestions about the chapter. Prequestions-read subjects read but did not attempt to answer these same prequestions before reading the chapter. Control subjects were not provided prequestions. Following reading, the subjects took a post-test over the chapter, with half the test questions based on prequestions and half covering material that was not prequestioned. Prequestions-answered subjects significantly outperformed control subjects on recall of material that was prequestioned, regardless of whether the prequestion had been answered correctly before reading. There were no prequestionsread versus control differences on questions relevant to prequestioned content and no experimental effects at all on questions over material that was not prequestioned. In general, these data are consistent with theoretical claims that prior knowledge activation increases learning and that activated but incorrect prior knowledge does not interfere with learning new content that is inconsistent with the activated prior knowledge. The data particularly provide support for the instructional practice of encouraging readers to attempt to answer prequestions before reading. 0 l!BO Academic Press, Inc.
There is a long history of providing questions as adjuncts to text (e.g., Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Andre, 1987; Hamilton, 1985; Pressey, 1926). One of the most robust findings in this literature is that learning of prequestioned material is enhanced, at least if students are permitted to select the parts of text that they read following exposure to prequestions (Anderson & Biddle, 1975; Levin & Pressley, 1981; Tiemey & Cunningham, 1984). More negatively, acquisition of nonquestioned material is often reduced because readers fail to attend to it as much as they attend This research was supported by a grant to the fust author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Correspondence and reprint requests should be directed to author Pressley, Department of Human Development/Institute of Child Study, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. 27 0361-476x/90 $3.00 Copyright 6 1990 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
28
PRESSLEY
ET AL.
to material relevant to the prequestions. Although these findings are certainly important, there are many gaps in our knowledge about prequestioning effects-Little is known about prequestion effects on processes other than selective attention. To illuminate other effects produced by prequestioning, this experiment employed procedures that discouraged the selective reading of text. Our particular concern here was whether attempting to answer prequestions per se (rather than just reading them) affects learning of subsequent text (see Hamilton, 1985, for commentary). Research on this issue is important because answering prequestions is an obvious response that readers can make to them. Subjects in a prequestions-answered condition responded to 23 prequestions about the content covered in a textbook chapter; they were required to justify their answers. Subjects in a prequestions-read condition were shown the prequestions before reading the chapter, reading the prequestions under a set requiring meaningful processing of these questions, but they were not required to attempt to answer these prequestions. Subjects in a control condition had no prereading exposure to questions. Subjects in all conditions took a 46question post-test over the material covered in the chapter following reading. When readers provide and justify correct answers to prequestions, it would be expected that post-test recall of prequestioned content should be enhanced. Correct responders are thinking “deeply” about the upcoming text and activating knowledge about the topic in doing so (cf. Rickards, 1976; Rickards & BiVesta, 1974; Watts & Anderson, 1971)-In general, learners remember more that they read if they activate relevant prior knowledge (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Arnold & Brooks, 1976; Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Brown, Smiley, Day, Townsend, & Lawton, 1977; Levin & Pressley, 1981; Pearson, Hansen, & Gordon, 1979; Tierney & Cunningham, 1984). Although reading prequestions might also activate relevant knowledge, we expected such activation to be minimal or less extensive in the absence of responding to the questions. If so, then reading prequestions would not be expected to enhance posttest recall of prequestioned content, at least not as much as in the prequestions-answered condition. There was much less certainty about the effects on memory of text when there are incorrect answers to prequestions. Positive effects are predicted by the view that text-based information that conflicts with prior knowledge and expectations is especially noticeable and noted, and thus should be especially memorable (e.g., Graesser & Nakamura, 1982; Mandler, 1984; O’Brien & Myers, 1985; Peeck, van den Bosch, & Kreupeling, 1982; Schank, 1982). Alternatively, negative effects could follow from activation of a flawed knowledge base including interference, errant in-
PREQUESTIONS
29
ferences, and intrusions inconsistent with the text content (e.g., Alvermann, Smith, & Readence, 1985; Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Brown et al., 1977; Lipson, 1982; Pichert & Anderson, 1977; Smith, Readence, & Alvermann, 1984). Nonetheless, since most reports of negative effects due to activation of incorrect prior knowledge were generated with children, it was not clear whether comparable problems would occur with adults-Adults may be better able to suppress inconsistent prior knowledge that had been activated during reading (or even correct their knowledge base in light of text content). Finally, this experiment was concerned with whether responding to prequestions produces more general effects, either facilitating or inhibiting memory of material that was not prequestioned. On the positive side, activating knowledge about one aspect of a passage could increase activation of other relevant prior knowledge. Negative effects might be expected, however, if subjects tried to understand the text in light of incorrect prior knowledge that was activated during prequestioning. Such an attempt to integrate the text with incorrect prior knowledge could lower comprehension, thereby leading to poorer retention (Bransford & Johnson, 1972). METHOD
Subjects Sixty students enrolled in an introductory psychology course participated in the experiment for a small amount of course credit. Participants ranged from 18 to 23 years of age (mean = 19.33years). Subjects were proficient in English and familiar with North American life-styles. Subjects were randomly assigned to the three conditions.
Materials Subjects read a 30-page chapter, “Adult development in the family,” from Troll’s (1975) an undergraduate life span development text. The chapter was selected because differences between younger and older adults is a topic that virtually all university students would have some preconceptions about, even if their ideas were in error. The chapter was edited slightly to remove materials that would be considered sexist by mid-1980s standards. The 46 post-test questions were based exclusively on material in the edited chapter. The questions covered important points in the chapter (determined by three raters) and were from material distributed throughout the text. Each required a short answer. For example, one question was, “What proportion of today’s college students believe that their sexual standards are like those of their parents?” Two sets of 23 prequestions were prepared, with each prequestion a rewording of one of the 46 post-test items so that the answer was dichotomous (although subjects were required to provide elaborated responses to justify the answer selected). For instance, the shortanswer item cited in the last paragraph was reworded, “Do most college students believe that their sexual attitudes are the same as their parents? Yes/No?” The 46 questions were randomly assigned to one of two sets of 23 prequestions.
Early and Middle Adulthood,
30
PRESSLEY
ET AL.
Procedure All subjects were tested individually. Subjects in two of the conditions were presented prequestions before they read the 30-page passage. Prequestions-answered subjects were presented one of the two sets of prequestions (half received one set, half the other) with the following directions: Today you will be asked to read an article on adult development in the family. We are interested in devising materials on adult development that are easy to understand in terms of a person’s own life. What I would like you to do is to answer 23 questions about adult development. All the questions have two possible answers. Choose one. If you have no idea what the right answer might be, then guess. Say your answer on to the tape recorder. Specify the number of the question that you are referring to. Then, answer the question and describe why you chose your answer and how it might relate to your own life. For example: Question: Is there a difference between the supply of marriage-eligible men and women? Answer: Number 1. “Yes. I know among my friends more female friends are single than males.” Work at a comfortable pace. You will have approximately 15 minutes to complete the task.
In fact, prequestions-answered subjects were permitted as much time as they needed to complete the task (with most taking about 15 min or a little less). Prequestions-read subjects were also given 23 prequestions (again, the specific sets were counterbalanced) and were instructed to focus on the meaning of the questions as follows: Today you will be asked to read a chapter on adult development in the family. Before reading the chapter I would like you to take a look at some questions on the topic of adult development. Sometimes questions are difftcult to understand, for example, because there is inappropriate punctuation used in the questions. We would like to make sure that the questions we devised are easy to comprehend, for instance, by using the best punctuation to make the questions optimally clear. What I would like you to do is to read each question to yourself onto the tape recorder. Say which number you are referring to. Then say “yes ” if you feel that the question was well written and easy to understand and say “no” if you think the question was not well written and it was difficult to understand. Then read the question out loud and enunciate appropriately to make the meaning of the question clear.
Prequestions-read subjects were also told that they would be given 15 min to complete the prequestion task, although the actual amount of time given to a prequestions-read subject was equal to the amount of time taken by a yoked prequestions-answered subject to complete the prequestions . Control subjects were given no exposure to the prequestions, but instead proceeded immediately to the task of reading the passage. When the chapter was presented, subjects in all conditions were told to read all 30 pages. We determined during pilot testing that nonselective reading of the text (i.e., material read one time and one time only with reading proceeding from the beginning to the end of text) could be obtained by instructing subjects emphatically to read all of the materials and
PREQUESTIONS
31
by having subjects overtly rate each paragraph for its comprehensibility. (It was important to guarantee nonselectivity since one response when prequestions are provided is simply to read only the prequestioned content, a response set that we wished to avoid.) Pilot testing also made obvious that pausing after each paragraph to rate comprehensibility was done effortlessly by subjects so that the rating task minimally disrupted reading. Reading in all conditions was directed as follows: You are going to read a chapter on adult development in the family. At the end of each paragraph you will be required to make an assessment about whether or not that paragraph was well written and easy to comprehend. All that you need to do is check the yes box if you think the paragraph was well written and easy to understand or the no box if you think it was not well written and hard to understand. The yes/no boxes can be found on an additional page that you will be given. Each number on the page corresponds to a paragraph number. It is important that you read each sentence only once. After you read each paragraph, do not reread it, just make your assessment and move on. Work at a comfortable pace.’
Following reading and paragraph-by-paragraph rating, subjects took the 4dquestion test. They were directed to answer on the basis of the information in the chapter. To gauge whether the randomization procedure had produced groups that were roughly comparable with respect to reading ability, all subjects were administered a short reading-comprehension test at the end of the experimental session. They were presented four reading comprehension passagesfrom the SAT (College Entrance Examination Board, 1986) and were required to respond to 14 multiple-choice items accompanying the passages. Subjects were given 20 min to complete the items. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
First of all, the three experimental groups performed approximately equally on the SAT items. The prequestions-answered subjects averaged 9.85 correct (maximum = 14) on the brief reading-comprehension test administered at the end of the session. The corresponding means in the prequestions-read and control conditions were 8.20 and 8.40, largest pairwise t(57) = 1.77, p > .05, between these three means. These data suggested roughly comparable reading-comprehension abilities in the three conditions. The experimental manipulation did not affect the perceived comprehensibility of the passage. Prequestions-answered subjects rated a mean of 68.6 (maximum = 83) of the paragraphs as easy to understand. Pre’ A variety of informal (i.e., observation of subjects while they read, postreading questioning) and formal (i.e., examination of the rating sheets) measures during pilot testing and during the conduct of the actual study suggested that subjects complied with these directions.
32
PRESSLEY ET AL.
questions-read subjects did so for 72.6 paragraphs. On average control subjects considered 72.3 paragraphs as easy to comprehend. The largest pairwise t(57) = 1.57, p > .lO, between these three means. The post-tests were scored by two judges with 99% agreement. The post-test scores of prequestions-answered and prequestions-read subjects were broken down into post-test items derived from prequestions and questions covering content that was not prequestioned. Post-test questions in the prequestions-answered condition were further subdivided into ones based on prequestions answered correctly and those based on prequestions answered incorrectly. The mean proportions of subjects recalling items (i.e., mean recall per item) are recorded in Table 1 as a function of experimental condition and item type. All of the proportions in Table 1 were compared with each other pairwise, with items as the random variable (i.e., dependent t tests conducted within items). (We do not report analyses with subjects as the random variable since such analyses involve confoundings of items and conditions for comparisons involving the prequestions-answered means; that is, each subject’s prequestioncorrect and prequestion-incorrect proportion would be based on a set of items unique to that subject.)2 A per comparison Type 1 error rate of .Ol was adopted to maintain a reasonable experimentwise error rate, with cutoff t = 2.70 in these analyses (e.g., Kirk, 1982). The significant pairwise differences are summarized in Table 1. In summary, the significant learning gains in the prequestions-answered condition and the absence of significant gains in the prequestions-read condition support the instructional practice of encouraging readers to attempt to answer prequestions. These gains made obvious that reading prequestions and attempting to answer them can affect learning positively, even if gross selective attention mechanisms are not permitted to operate (i.e., when the entire text is read as it was here). The failure of prequestion reading alone to increase recall of material covered in the prequestions or to decrease recall of material covered in the prequestions or to decrease recall of material not covered in the prequestions increases the credibility of our assumption that selective attention mechanisms were unlikely with the procedures used here (Anderson & Biddle, 1975). As expected on the basis of previous research on prior knowledge effects, responding correctly to prequestions was associated with better ’ The pattern of significant outcomes is the same with subjects as the random variable with the exception of one comparison. The contrast within the prequestions-answered condition was significant (i.e., prequestion-correct items were significantly more likely to be answered correctly on the post-test than prequestion-incorrect items). Since this contrast is not particularly important compared to other contrasts in the analyses, we do not consider this slight difference in significant outcomes (a trend in one analysis, significant in the other) to be interpretively consequential.
33
PREQUESTIONS
TABLE 1 MEAN PROPORTIONS OF SUBJECTS ANSWERING EACH ITEM CORRECTLY AS A FUNCTION OF EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION AND PREQUESTION STATUS Prequestion answered correctly
Prequestion answered incorrectly
Prequestion exposed M
Condition
M
SD
M
SD
Prequestionsanswered + Prequestionsread Control
.714”
,325
.634”,b
.317
-
-
-
.5896,’
-
-
-
-
Not available as prequestion
SD
M
SD
-
.5396,’
.307
.526b.’
,268
,509’
.255
,277
-
Note. Mean proportions sharing superscripts do not differ significantly at p < .Ol. + Prequestions-Answered proportions each based on 45 items. One prequestion was answered correctly by all subjects and thus could not be used in the prequestion-correct analysis. Based on a mean of 10.45 prequestion-correct items per subject.
performance on corresponding post-test items. More importantly, activating inconsistent prior knowledge (i.e., by answering prequestions incorrectly) did not interfere with subsequent learning. In fact, post-test questions derived from prequestion-incorrect items were more likely to be answered correctly than post-test questions corresponding to prequestion-read and no-prequestion items. This pattern was marginally significant when prequestion-incorrect items were compared to no-prequestion items in the prequestions-answered and in the prequestions-read groups (.Ol < p < .05 in both cases). The advantage was significant when prequestion-incorrect items were compared to control group items. The advantage of prequestion-incorrect items relative to prequestions-read items was less striking, however @ < .30). This overall pattern of results (especially the prequestions-answered versus control comparisons) is consistent with the theoretical perspective that activating prior knowledge can positively affect learning of both content that is congruent and content that is not congruent with prior knowledge (e.g., Graesser & Nakamura, 1982; Mandler, 1984, Chap. 3). On the other hand, some theorists (e.g., Graesser & Nakamura, 1982) posit that information inconsistent with prior knowledge should actually be more memorable (at least in the short-term) than consistent information-That was not the case here, with small- to moderate-sized positive effects at best (i.e., approximately a half standard deviation relative to the control condition) (Cohen, 1977)associated with activation of inconsistent knowledge. Moreover, knowledge activation effects due to prequestioning were very constrained, for responding to prequestions did not affect memory of material not covered by the prequestions. We believe that future studies of effects produced by responding to prequestions should attempt to collect on-line data as readers go through
PRESSLEY ET AL.
34
text. Such information should illuminate the mechanisms that mediate effects produced by prequestion responding. For instance, do people explicitly recognize and encode that text information is consistent or inconsistent with their prequestion responses? If readers do not recognize and consciously note consistencies and inconsistencies between texts and prequestion responses, can they be taught to do so so that their comprehension and memory of text is increased? Such research should provide additional information about mechanisms that would increase the utility of adjunct aids. REFERENCES D. E., SMITH, L. C., & READENCE, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible texts. Reading Research Quar-
ALVERMANN,
terly, 20, 42W36. R. C., & BIDDLE, W. B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research und theory (Vol. 9). New York: Academic Press. ANDERSON, R. C., &PEARSON, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Hundbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman. ANDRE, T. (1987). Questions and learning from reading. Questioning Exchange, 1, 47-86. ARNOLD, D. J., & BROOKS, P. H. (1976). Influence of contextual organizing material on children’s listening comprehension. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 68, 711-716. BRUNSFORD, J. D., & JOHNSON, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726. BROWN, A. L., SMILEY, S. S., DAY, J., TOWNSEND, M., & LAWTON, S. C. (1977). Intrusion of a thematic idea in children’s recall of prose. Child Development, 48, 1454-1466. COHEN, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. College Entrance Examination Board (1986). 10 SAT fesfs. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board. GRAESSER, A. C., & NAKAMURA, G. V. (1982). The impact of a schema on comprehension and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of/earning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 16). New York: Academic Press. HAMILTON, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions. Review of Educational Research, 55, 47-86. KIRK, R. E. (1982). Experimental design (2nd ed.) Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. LEVIN, J. R., & PRESSLEY,M. (1981). Improving children’s prose comprehension: Selected strategies that seem to succeed. In D. Santa & E. Bittayes (Eds.), Children’s prose comprehension: Reseurch and practice (pp. 4&71). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. LIPSON,M. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243-261. MANDLER, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. O’BRIEN, E. J., & MYERS,J. L. (1985). When comprehension difftculty improves memory for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 12-21. ANDERSON,
PREQUESTIONS
35
P. D., HANSEN, J., & GORDON,C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209. PEECK, J., VAN DEN BOSCH, A. B., & KREUPELING, W. J. (1982). Effect of mobilizing prior knowledge in learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 771-777. PICHERT, J. W., & ANDERSON, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315. PRESSEY, S. L. A. (1926). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores-and teaches.
PEARSON,
School and Society, 23, 373-376.
J. P. (1976). Interaction of position and conceptual level of adjunct questions on immediate and delayed retention of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 210217. RICKARDS, J. P., & DIVESTA, F. J. (1974). Type and frequency of questions in processing text material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 354-362. SCHANK, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. SMITH, L. C., READENCE, J. E., & ALVERMANN, D. E. (1984). Effects of activating background knowledge on comprehension of expository prose. In 33rd Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 188-192). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. TIERNEY, R. J., & CUNNINGHAM, J. W. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-655). New York: Longman. TROLL, L. E. (1975). Early and middle adulthood. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. WATTS, G. H., & ANDERSON, R. C. (1971). Effects of three types of inserted questions on learning from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 387-394.
RICKARDS,