Selective Benefits of Question Self-Generation and Answering for Remembering Expository Text

被引:33
作者
Bugg, Julie M. [1 ]
McDaniel, Mark A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Dept Psychol, St Louis, MO 63130 USA
关键词
study strategies; self-generated questions; memory; metacomprehension; METACOMPREHENSION ACCURACY; ENCODING DIFFICULTY; COMPREHENSION; CALIBRATION; EXPLANATION; INFORMATION; STRATEGIES; KNOWLEDGE; STUDENTS; RECALL;
D O I
10.1037/a0028661
中图分类号
G44 [教育心理学];
学科分类号
0402 ; 040202 ;
摘要
The present study examined possible memory and metacomprehension benefits of using a combined question self-generation and answering technique, relative to rereading, as a study strategy for expository passages. In the 2 question self-generation and answering conditions (detail or conceptual questions), participants were prompted on how to generate questions of a particular type (detail or conceptual) and given practice and feedback prior to reading and studying 4 experimental passages. Participants then made judgments of learning for detailed and conceptual information from the passages, following which a cued-recall test with detail and conceptual questions was administered. The self-generation and answering of conceptual questions yielded a significant benefit to memory performance for conceptual but not detailed test questions, relative to a rereading condition, whereas the self-generation and answering of detail questions provided no benefit. A similar pattern was found for metacomprehension as assessed by calibration, but not relative monitoring accuracy. The selective memory benefit observed here is consistent with theoretical frameworks that emphasize the importance of transfer- and material-appropriate processing in modulating the benefits of using question self-generation and answering as a study strategy.
引用
收藏
页码:922 / 931
页数:10
相关论文
共 44 条
[11]   Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy [J].
Griffin, Thomas D. ;
Wiley, Jennifer ;
Thiede, Keith W. .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 2008, 36 (01) :93-103
[12]   The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy [J].
Griffin, Thomas D. ;
Jee, Benjamin D. ;
Wiley, Jennifer .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 2009, 37 (07) :1001-1013
[13]  
Jenkins J.J., 1979, LEVELS PROCESSING HU, P429, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21055-9
[14]   FACILITATING ELABORATIVE LEARNING THROUGH GUIDED STUDENT-GENERATED QUESTIONING [J].
KING, A .
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 1992, 27 (01) :111-126
[15]  
KING A, 1989, CONTEMP EDUC PSYCHOL, V14, P1
[16]  
LABERCANE G, 1987, J SPEC EDUC, V11, P167
[17]  
Levy B.A., 1981, INTERACTIVE PROCESSE, P1
[18]   INCREASED PROCESSING ENHANCES CALIBRATION OF COMPREHENSION [J].
MAKI, RH ;
FOLEY, JM ;
KAJER, WK ;
THOMPSON, RC ;
WILLERT, MG .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 1990, 16 (04) :609-616
[19]   Predicting performance on text: Delayed versus immediate predictions and tests [J].
Maki, RH .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 1998, 26 (05) :959-964
[20]   METACOMPREHENSION OF TEXT MATERIAL [J].
MAKI, RH ;
BERRY, SL .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 1984, 10 (04) :663-679