Elaborative Interrogation and Facilitation of Fact Learning: Why Having a Knowledge Base Is One Thing and Using It Is Quite Another

Pressley, Michael; Wood, Eileen; Woloshyn, Vera

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3268-1_15

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Siegler (1990) and Pressley, Wood, and Woloshyn (1990) pointed out that there is a bi-directional influence of prior declarative knowledge and the use and knowledge of memory and learning strategies. Domain-specific prior knowledge can compensate for a lack of strategic knowledge and vice versa (Garner & Alexander, 1989;Minnaert & Janssen, 1995;Schneider & Weinert, 1990).…”

Section: Prior Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Metacognitive competence, on the other hand, may compensate for a lack of prior knowledge (Garner & Alexander, 1989). According to many researchers, the relation between prior knowledge and strategies is bi-directional (Pressley et al, 1990;Siegler, 1990). Prior knowledge and strategy awareness in text processing seem to interact, and the concrete quality of text processing is also dependent on the moti vational characteristics of the learner.…”

Section: Text Comprehension While Reading a Text (On-line Comprehensimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predictors of reading literacy

Artelt

Schiefele

Schneider³

2001

Eur J Psychol Educ

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two reading literacy/text comprehension tests with different demands (on-line comprehension vs. memory-based comprehension) were administered to 6,104 15-year-old students from all German states and school types. The combined and specific effects of proximal and distal variables from small-scale psychological research as well as from large-scale educational studies on each text comprehension measure were investigated.Metacognitive knowledge, decoding speed, and the number of books at home (as an indicator for family background) were found to have specific and large effects on on-line comprehension and accounted for 46 percent of the variance with the highest effects for metacognition.Metacognitive knowledge was also highly predictive when the effects of specific prior knowledge and thematic interest on memory-based text comprehension were estimated simultaneously.In addition, students who showed relative strength in building up a coherent representation of specific texts (memory-based text comprehension) were characterised by high amounts of prior knowledge and thematic interest thereby underlining the importance of these student characteristics for learning.

show abstract

Section: Prior Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Text Comprehension While Reading a Text (On-line Comprehensimentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of reading literacy

Artelt

Schiefele

Schneider³

2001

Eur J Psychol Educ

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps classroom instruction that specifically addresses common misconceptions would contribute to the abandonment of such robust but inappropriate ideas (Gunstone et al, 1981;Roth, 1985). Pressley, Wood, and Woleshyn (1988) suggest that we must promote research endeavors that assist learning when background knowledge is erroneous or when learners rely too heavily on long-held beliefs that may lead to misinterpretations.…”

Section: Hypotheses About Content and Strategy Knowledge Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance

Alexander

Judy

1988

Review of Educational Research

438

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results of an extensive review of the literature that relates to the interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge on academic performance. Our objectives in this review were to: (a) provide a critical analysis of that literature, (b) present hypotheses about the interaction between domain-specific and strategic knowledge as presented in the research, and (c) offer recommendations for future investigations on the interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge.Research in cognitive psychology during the past two decades has produced two undisputed findings about academic performance. First, those who know more about a particular domain generally understand and remember better than do those with only limited background knowledge (e.g., Chi, 1985;Glaser, 1984). Second, those who monitor and regulate their cognitive processing appropriately during task performance do better than those who do not engage in such strategic processing (e.g., Flavell, 1981;Garner, 1987). Although these two findings have been consistently supported in the research, there appears to be little understanding of how these two forms of knowledge interact during learning.Intuitively, it would seem that the effective and efficient learning in the classroom is dependent upon the continual orchestration of one's content and strategy knowledge. We might hypothesize, for example, that competent learners weigh their content knowledge against the demands of the task and then bring the appropriate form of strategic knowledge to bear on that task. As the learners' knowledge of the content relative to that task increases, then it is likely that the need for strategic behavior decreases. Alternatively, to the extent that strategies can only be executed in light of extensive domain knowledge, content knowledge and strategy use might covary.Although such hypotheses are plausible, we lack a synthesis of the literature relevant to the interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge against which

show abstract

“…Unless explicitly instructed to engage in elaboration strategies (processing that encourages learners to make meaningful connections between prior knowledge and to-be-learned information) both children and adults tend to rely on ineffective strategies for learning, such as repetitious reading, and verbatim note taking (Garner, 1990;Harris and Pressley, 1991;Lambiotte et al, 1988;Pressley, Wood, and Woloshyn, 1990). This is true even if students possess relevant prior knowledge about target information that could render it more meaningful and memorable (Pressley, Symons, McDaniel, Snyder, and Turnure, 1988;Woloshyn, Willoughby, Wood, and Pressley, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using elaborative interrogation to facilitate acquisition of factual information in cooperative learning settings: One good strategy deserves another

Kahl

Woloshyn

1994

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether providing 6th-grade students with cooperative elaborative interrogation instruction would facilitate learning relative to providing them with cooperative learning, elaborative interrogation or reading-for-understanding instructions. All students were presented with 36 factual statements about six animals. Cooperative elaborative interrogation students were instructed to work collaboratively and use their prior knowledge to state why each fact is true. Cooperative learning students were told to work collaboratively to learn target materials, while elaborative interrogation students were instructed to generate answers to the why questions on their own. Reading-control students were also on their own and instructed to read the animal facts for understanding. For immediate free recall and immediate associative matching tests, students in the experimental conditions outperformed those in the control condition. Cooperative elaborative interrogation and elaborative interrogation students maintained f his advantage on a 30-day follow-up associative matching test, with elaborative interrogation students maintaining a significant advantage relative to reading controls on a 60-day associative matching follow-up. (There was also a strong trend favouring the cooperative elaborative interrogation condition on this 60-day measure.) The quality of the 'why' answer affected learning: Generating and listening to scientifically correct answers that used relevant prtor knowledge to clarify target information was associated with better memory for facts than were other types of study responses. Students in this study learned the most when they were explicitly directed to activate relevant prior knowledge that supports and clarifies new information-processing that occurs following either small-group or individual elaborative interrogation instruction.

show abstract

Elaborative Interrogation and Facilitation of Fact Learning: Why Having a Knowledge Base Is One Thing and Using It Is Quite Another

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

Predictors of reading literacy

Predictors of reading literacy

The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance

Using elaborative interrogation to facilitate acquisition of factual information in cooperative learning settings: One good strategy deserves another

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About