The generation effect with nonwords.

Johns, Elizabeth E.; Swanson, Leila G.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.180

Cited by 53 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A simple explanation is that subjects have some memory for the literal form of generated stimuli (cf. Johns & Swanson, 1988;Nairne & Widner, 1987). That little extra memory aids discrimination between semantically similar but orthographically distinct alternatives, and hurts discrimination between orthographically similar but semantically distinct alternatives.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, if generators see ohrven and transpose letters mentally to produce "horven" as a response, whereas readers see ohrven and horven side by side, then a test for horven involves a stimulus that the readers have actually seen, but that thegenerators have not. Johns and Swanson (1988) found that testing with the complete forms decreased recognition for generated nonwords; there was a generation effect when the fragments were the tested stimuli, or when the complete form had been given as feedback after the generative attempt. To avoid a study-test confound, we can test with the studied fragments, or we can provide feedback after the attempt, to define the unit that the experimenter has in mind.…”

Section: Generated Targets Benefit From Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many experiments, memorial benefits have been found when subjects generate items from fragments rather than read items in their complete forms. Does generation cause this difference, or are subjects disposed to adopt different strategies when generating as opposed to reading? If generating causes the difference, items processed in the same way apart from a generative stage should therefore benefit from that generative stage. Our experiments did result in benefits for generating as opposed to reading, but only when the readers processed the words poorly-by pronouncing them. When the readers processed the items well, by imagining them, generating was no better than reading. A new generation effect was found in metamemory. Subjects thought they would remember more generated items than read items; however, the act of making the prediction entailed meaningful processing, and the generated items were not actually remembered better than the read ones.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Generated Targets Benefit From Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, when subjects generate nonsense responses (it was expected that) there should be no generation effect for the responses and, therefore, the generation effect for cues could be sought on multiple memory measures. Subsequent to conducting Experiment 3, however, demonstrations of generation effects for nonsense syllables were reported (Johns & Swanson, 1988;Nairne & Widner, 1987), retrospectively undermining a component of the plan of Experiment 3. 4 As will be seen, however, Experiment 3 was nevertheless able to provide useful evidence bearing on the generation effect for cues.…”

Section: Experiments 3 a Further Test Of A Generation Effect For Cuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The generation effect extended: Memory enhancement for generation cues

Greenwald

Johnson

1989

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The generation effect is the greater memorability of a response that is actively produced (e.g., in answering a question from memory) than one that is more passively produced (as in reading the answer). The present three experiments addressed a question that is critical to the theoretical interpretation of the generation effect: Is memory enhanced for the cues that are used to elicit generated responses? Using incidental learning procedures, Experiments 1 and 2 gave an affirmative answer (although the effect was substantially weaker than the generation effect for responses). Enhancement of memory for generation cues was observed both in a withinsubject/within-list design (reading and generation items within the same trial blocks; Experiment 1) and in a between-subjects design (reading and generation tasks for different groups of subjects; Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, memory enhancement for generation cues was used to produce a previously unobtained result-a generation effect for nonsense responses under incidentallearning conditions. These findings provide critical evidence required by theories that interpret the generation effect in terms of enhanced processing of the cue-response item.The recall or recognition benefit for a response that one produces with minimal external assistance, as compared with one that is entirely guided by stimuli, has been called the generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). For example, the incomplete word in the next sentence should be remembered better than a comparable word in this one. Despite repeated observations of the generation effect in research settings, there is not yet any widely ac--pted interpretation. The generation effect is important because its memory benefit apparently occurs without deliberate effort by the learner. An interpretation of the generation effect should, therefore, provide valuable insight into the natural operation of memory.The present research addresses a small, but critically important, piece of the empirical and theoretical puzzle of the generation effect: determination of whether the memory benefit of generation extends to the cues that elicit generated responses. This empirical question has crucial bearing on associative or relational processing theories of the generation effect. Theories in this category are ones that attribute to the generation process greater semantic analysis, deeper (i.e., richer or more elaborated) processing, or greater processing of the cue-response relationThis report is based partly on the M.A. thesis of the second author at OhioState University, underthe supervision of the first.

show abstract

“…In experiments in which college students generated (as compared to read) free associates or rhymes, memory was enhanced (e.g., Schwartz & Metcalfe, 1992;Slamecka & Graf, 1978). The effect has been shown to occur with words (Jacoby, 1978), sentences (Graf, 1980), bigrams (Gardiner & Hampton, 1985), numbers (Gardiner & Rowley, 1984), and pictures (Peynircioglu, 1989), so long as the format of the test is the same as the format of study (Johns & Swanson, 1988;Nairne & Widner, 1987). In most studies, the items have been carefully selected such that in the generate condition, the participant always generated the correct answer.…”

Section: Self-generation Of Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting

Metcalfe

Kornell

Son

2007

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, learning performance in a 6-or 7-week cognitive-science based computer-study programme was compared to equal time spent self-studying on paper. The first two experiments were conducted with grade 6 and 7 children in a high risk educational setting, the third with Columbia University undergraduates. The principles the programme implemented included (1) deep, meaningful, elaborative, multimodal processing, (2) transfer-appropriate processing, (3) selfgeneration and multiple testing of responses, and (4) spaced practice. The programme was also designed to thwart metacognitive illusions that would otherwise lead to inappropriate study patterns. All three experiments showed a distinct advantage in final test performance for the cognitive-science based programme, but this advantage was particularly prominent in the children.A basic foundation for school accomplishment is the availability of higher order cognitive and metacognitive competencies to realistically assess one's knowledge, to allocate and organise study time and effort optimally, to apply cognitive principles (such as deep, elaborative rehearsal, self-generation, testing, and spacing of practice, to name just a few) that effectively enhance learning, and to resist the distractions that could undermine even the most sincerely endorsed intentions. In the population that we targeted in this research, a population of middle school children in an at-risk school setting, these competencies were strikingly limited. Their enhancement was the primary objective of this research. In addition, even among sophisticated learners, specific limitations exist in the use of certain metacognitive strategies. Children and adults often think they know things when they do not (see Metcalfe, 1998;Rawson & Dunlosky, 2007 this issue), and hence inappropriately terminate self-controlled study efforts, or otherwise study in a manner that fails to optimise learning (Bjork, 1994). We sought to devise a computerassisted study programme, based on principles of cognitive science, that would allow such metacognitive illusions to be overcome.The project reported here focused on memory enhancing principles derived from experimental studies in cognitive science. Most of these principles, because they have been studied primarily with a focus on understanding the mechanisms underlying memory and cognition, rather than on efforts to facilitate children's academic success, have been investigated in single-session experiments with scholastically irrelevant materials with college-student participants. Despite the apparent lack of connection of this cognitive science literature to real problems that children Correspondence should be addressed to Janet Metcalfe,

show abstract

The generation effect with nonwords.

Cited by 53 publications

References 20 publications

Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading

Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading

The generation effect extended: Memory enhancement for generation cues

A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About